


^^Al 













^^' <^f> ' -^^ * aV ^ 





• \~- 


J c '^ ' 


■ tJ.^' 




.^' ,^^ 





S: := 






".- / 


'•^-. ^ 




- o'^' 


■^r 




> \^ 


'^^. 




\' 


-> 


.^^' 









z 




■ ^. 






^. 


^ '■ ■ ■■ 










' " * 


<••-:. 


' '^ 




/ -i^ 


•■^ 




\ '"^^ 


C^^' 






■^. c'^' 



• 






4>- . 



= v 



Digitized by the Internet Archive^; ^v./.^ 
in 2010 with funding from ,\ 
The Library of Congress 






'00 










'^'^ http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsfindiOOhowa 



^. 



'f. '.. .s^ '■<, - <.\V '-T' 



#% ^ .^% 



Or-- .\ .', .-.V- 






PROCEEDLNGS, FLNDINiiS, AND OPINION 



COURT OF INQUIRY 



CONVENED UNDER THE 



ACT OF CONGRESS OF FEBRUARY K}, 1874, 



SPECIAL ORDERS No. :?r), WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S 
OFFICE, OF FEBRUARY IG, 1874, 



IN THE CASE OF 



BRIG. GEN. OLIVER 0. HOWARD, 

UNITED STATES AIJMY. 



Gen. WILLIAM T. SHERMAN, 

UNITED STATES AUMV, TKESIDEXT OF TilE COURT. 



Maj. ASA BIRD GARDNER, 

.TUDOE- ADVOCATE UNITED ST.\TES AKMV, .lUDOE-ADVOCATE. 



-««^ 



" ' '" \ ' 



I 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 

1874. 



L 



MAY 9 1905 
D.ofO« 



Proceedings of a court of inquiry which convened at the city of Washing- 
ton^ District of Columbia^ pursuant to the following orders: 

[Special Orders No. 35.1 

War Department, Ad.tutant-General's Office, 
Washington, February 16, 1874. 

Under the provisiou of the joint resolntiou of Congress approved February 13, 1874, 
a special court of inquiry, to consist of five members, will convene in the city of Wash- 
ington, Tuesday, March 3, 1874, " to fully investigate charges against Brig. Gen. 
O. O. Howard, contained in the communications of the Secretary of War to the 
Speaker of the House of Representatives, of date December 4, 1873, and the 5th 
day of January, 1874, and to report their opinion, as well upon moral as ui»on techni- 
cal and legal responsibility for such offenses, if any, as may be discovered." 

Detail for the court. 

Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. A. 
Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. 

Brigadier-General M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. 
Brig. Gen. ,lohn Pope", U. S. A. 
Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry. 

Maj. Asa B. Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., is appointed judge advocate of the 
court. 

By order of the President of the United States : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 

Official : 
L. H Pelouze, 

* Assistant Adjutant-General, 



FIEST DAY. 



Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, March 3, 1874. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders, at 12 o'clock noon. 

Fresent. 

1. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, TJ. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

4. Col. Joseph J. Reynolds, Third United States Cavalry ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate U. S. A,, judge-advocate 
of the court. 

Absent. 

Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. 

Brig. Gen. Oliver 0. Howard, U. S. A., the accused party, also present. 

The Judge-Advocate stated to the court that he had received official 
information that MajorGeueral jMcDowell's absence was in consequence 
of sickness. 

1 H 



The foregoing orders convening the court were then read in Brigadier- 
General Howard's presence. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : 

May it please the court, 1 And, after diligent examination, that the 
official papers in this case are very voluminous, intricate, and involving- 
many calculations. 

I presume the court desires me to present the case in a logical man- 
ner, and the proof in consecutive order, for its better understanding. 
This 1 cannot do in the time already afforded me. I therefore respect- 
fully request a reasonable adjournment to enable me to become familiar 
with my subject, and I suggest next Tuesday, March 10, 1874, as the 
earliest practicable date, by which time I hope Major-General McDowell 
may also be present. 

On motion the court then adjourned to meet Tuesday, March 10, 1874, 
at 12 o'clock noon. 



SECOND DAY. 

KooMS Court of Inquiry, 

Washington, D. C, March 10, 1874. 

The court met, pursuant to the foregoing orders, at 12 m. 

Present. 

1. Gen. William T. Shermau, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. j 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Joseph J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalry ; and 
Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate. 

Also, the accused. Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A. 

The Judge- Advocate then read to the court the following orders : 

[Special Orders No. 51J 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 
Washington, March 9, 1874. 

The following.? officers are added to the detail for the Special Court of Inquiry con- 
vened In this citj' hy Special Orders No. 3.5, February 16, 1874, from this Offict?, to inves- 
tigate the charges against Brigadier-General Howard, and will report accordingly with- 
out delay : 

Col. George W. Getty, 3d Artillery. 
Col. Nelson A. Miles, 5th Infantry. 

By order of the President of the United States. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, Adjutant- General. 
Official : 

L. H. Pelouze, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Col. Nelson A. Miles, 5th Infantry, then took his seat. 

The Judge- Advocate then said : 

The Adjutant-General of the Army has informed me that Colonel Getty 
was yesterday telegraphed for, but may not have received* the telegram 
in time to be present to-day. As, how^ever, the previous proceedings 
may be read to him when he shall arrive, there would be no legal objec- 
tion, I apprehend, to his then taking his seat, provided General Howard 
makes no objection. 

General Howard, having heard the orders read which convened the 



court, was then asked if he had any objection to any member present 
named in said order, to which he replied in the negative. 

The members of the court present were then severally duly sworn by 
the judge-advocate, and the judge-advocate was then duly sworn by 
the president of the court. All the oaths were administered according 
to law, in the presence of the accused. 

The accused then entered the following request : 

WASnixGTON, D. C, March 10, 1874. 
May it please the court : 

I have the honor to request that the following-nanaed gentlemen be admitted in 
court as my counsel pending this investigation : Mr. Edgar Ketchuui and Mr. Alexander 
P. Ketchum, of New York city, and Mr. George W. Dyer and Mr. Henry D. Beam, of 
Washington, D. C. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

0.0. HOWARD, 
BrUjadler-General, U. S. Army. 

No objections were offered by any member of the court, and Alexan- 
der P. Ketchum and George W. Dyer, of the counsel, being present, 
were admitted as such. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : 

Under the 28th section of the act of Congress approved March 3, 
1863, I desire to appoint as reporter of this court, with permission, Mr. 
Eobert W. C. Mitchell. 

The court having no objection, Mr. Mitchell was then duly sworn, ac- 
cording to law, by tbe judge-advocate, to faithfully perform his duty 
as reporter, and to record the proceedings and the testimony. 

The Judge-Advocate then read tbe joint resolution of Congress 
under which the court was convened, of February 13, 1874, and incor- 
I)orated in General Orders No. 14, hereunto attached and marked Ex- 
hibit A. 

The Accused then said : May it please the court, I respectfully ask 
the court before it proceeds to take testimony, to consider and determine 
what is meant in the joint resolution of Congress, and in Special Orders 
No. 35, authorizing and convening this court, by the term " technical " 
as applied to " responsibility" for "offenses." 

I make this request because I do not know the meaning which may 
be attached to the expression referred to, and wish to avoid any misap- 
prehension which may arise therefrom upon the trial. 

The Judge- Advocate. I suggest that no action be at present taken 
upon the request, for the reason that the communications from the Sec- 
retary of War are not yet before the court, and a proper understanding 
of these communications might be necessary in order to determine the 
bearing of the word technical. 

The Accused. My counsel asks that the question be settled prior to 
the taking of testimony. 

The President. It would be hardly competent for the court to criti- 
cise the language of the act itself. 

The Accused. It is not that I wish to be captious at all. 

The court was cleared. Upon the doors being re-opened, the accused 
and his counsel being present, the judge- advocate read the decision of 
the court, which was as follows : 

The court considers that the definitions of the word " technical " given 
by Webster and by Johnson, lexicographers of general authority, should 
be accepted by this court, and that the intention of the law aud of the 
order which adopts the words of the law, was to make this inquiry as 
broad as possible. 

The Accused. If it may please the court, I would like to name the 



counsel — senior counsel — who I desire to address the court at such times 
as may be necessary. 

The President. I think it would be advisable for yourself to do that, 
that you, wheuever necessary, address the court yourself. 

The Judge- Advocate then submitted the certified copies of the let- 
ters of the Secretary of War transmitted to the House of Representativef? 
containing the accusations, with the accompanying exhibits, which are 
hereunto appended, and marked together as Exhibit B. 

The Judge-Advocate then proceeded to read the letters. 

Having read the letter of December 4, 1873, from the Secretary of 
War to the Speaker of the House of Eepreseutatives, the president of 
the court said : 

This is the letter reciting the act. (To the judge-advocate.) Do you 
construe the matter of inquiry to lie wholly within this letter? 

Judge- Advocate. Yes, sir. 

The Judge- ADVOCATE tlien proceeded with the reading of the letter 
from the Secretary of War to the Speaker of the House of Rejtresent- 
atives ; pending which. 

The Accused said : I desire to ask whether the letters or exhibits 
accompanying the Secretary's communication which have been read 
by the judge-advocate are offered as explanatory of the charges — whether 
they are offered as evidence against me. 

At the request of a member, the court was cleared to consider the 
question. 

Upon re-opening the doors, the accused and his counsel being present, 
the following decision was read by the judge-advocate as being the 
decision of the court : 

The court considers that the sev^eral exhibits to the letter of the 
Secretary of War of December 4, 1873, from A to G, pp. 3 to 60, in- 
clusive, and exhibits to letter of the Secretary of War of January 5, 
1874, from A to B, pp. G to 9, inclusive, are parts and parcels of the 
communication above referred to, which are by the law and order the 
subject of the inquiry referred to this court. 

The Judge- Advocate then read the exhibits connected with the first 
communication of the Secretary of War, December 4, 1873, in printed 
Executive Document No. 10. Having proceeded in the reading of the 
■exhibits as far as E, page 20, the hour of 3 o'clock having arrived, 
the court, on motion, adjourned until 11 a. m., to-morrow. 



THIRD DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, 
Washington, B. C, March 11, 1874. 
The court met pursuant to foregoing orders and adjournment, at 11 
a. m. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third United States Artillery ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry ; 



5 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry; aud 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate U. S. A., judge-advocate of 
the court ; also 

Brig.-Geu. O. O. Howard, U. S. A.; aud Messrs. A. P. Ketchuiu and 
George W. Dyer, esqs., of counsel. 

The Judge- Advocate then asked Brigadier-General Howard if he had 
any objection to Colonel Getty as a member of this court, to which 
General Howard replied in the negative. 

Colonel Getty was then duly sworn according to law by the judge- 
advocate in the presence of the accused. 

The proceedings of the first day, March 3, 1874, were then read for 
Colonel Getty's information. 

The proceedings of the last meeting, of March 10, 1874, were then 
read and approved. 

The Judge-Advocate then proceeded to read Exhibit B, from page 20, 
where it had been discontinued at the time of adjournment yesterday. 

The reading of Exhibit B having closed. General Orders No. 22, dated 
"War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, March 9, 
1874, aunonucing the death of Ex- President Millard Fillmore, were read 
by the judge-advocate, and are hereunto appended, marked Exhibit C. 

On motion, the court went into closed session, and, uiion the doors 
being opened, it was announced that, in consequence of the death of Ex- 
President Fillmore, the court had adjourned (at 3 o'clock) until 11 a. m., 
Friday, March 13, 1874. 



FOUETH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington^ D. C, March 13, 1874. 
The court met pursaant to the foregoing orders and adjournment, at 
11 a. m. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery ; 

6. (Jol. J. J. Eeynohls, Third Cavalry ; 

7. Col. X. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate U. S. A., judge-advocate of 
the court ; also 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A. ; and A. P. Ketchum and George 
W. Dyer, esqs., of counsel. 

The proceedings of the previous meeting of the court, March 11, 
1874, were then read and approved. 

The Judge- Advocate, addressing the court: The president of the 
court has handed me a communication received by him from a commit- 
tee of the United States Senate, which is as follows : 

Senate Chamber, March 12, 1874. 

Sir : The officers of the Army are respectfully invited by the committee of arrange- 
ments to attend the funeral of the Hon. Charles Sumner, late a Senator from the State 
of Massachusetts, from the Senate Chamber, to-morrow at half past twelve o'clock p. m 

To the General of the Army. 



6 

A member then moved tbat tlie court adjourn until next Monday at 
11 a. m. ; pending the consideration of which, the Accused said: "I 
have thought it would save time if I could have a request through the 
judge-advocate, or the judge-advocate be directed to request that I, 
with my counsel, have the priNilege of visiting the War Department 
and consulting my own records. I have requested the privilege from 
the War Department, but it has been denied me. The permission was 
granted if I asked for any specific paper, but I wish to look at and 
read up the whole record in company with any one of my counsel." 

The Judge-Advocate then read to thecourt the following communica- 
tion, to which General Howard referred in his remarks as from the War 
Department — from the Adjutant-General. (Exhibit D.) 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the following deci- 
sion of the court was announced by the judge-advocate as a communi- 
cation to be made by the judge-advocate to the honorable Secretary of 
War: 

" On the application of Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, the court requests 
that he be granted permission by the Secretary of War to have access 
during the progress of this court, with his counsel, to the records of the 
Freedmen's Bureau for the purpose of refreshing his memory in regard 
to matters which may be important to the investigation of the charges 
against him." 

The court then adjourned at 12 m., to meet on Monday, March 16, 
1874, at 11 a. m. 



FIFTH DAY. 



Court of Inquiry Booms, No. 181G F Street, 

Washington, 1). C, March 16, 1874. 

The court met pursuant to foregoing orders and adjournment, at 11 
a. m. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, CJ, S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, and 

Maj. Asa B. Gardner, judge-advocate U. S. A., judge-advocate of 
the court ; also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., and George W. Dyer and H. D. 
Beems, esqs., of counsel. 

The Accused. In this connection I would ask if any communication 
has been received in reply to thisi (referring to the part of the pro- 
ceedings of the fourth day, just read.) 

The Judge- Advocate. 1 have not received any reply, but the Adju- 
tant-General informed me that he had received the communication of 
the court referred to, and that it had been approved. 

Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, of the court, was then duly sworn according 
to law as the first witness. 



At this point the accused said: I desire to know whether this witness 
has been sworn as an expert. 
By the Court. Yes. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. General Meigs, please state how long you have been Quar- 
termaster-General of the Army. 

Answer. Since June, 1861. 

Question. Please state what were the rules and regulations of your 
Department, March 29, 1867, with reference to the disbursement of 
moneys by disbursing offlcers, and from that time to July 1, 1872. 

Answer. It would be impossible to give in this testimony all these 
rules and regulations. They may be found in the Revised Regulations 
of the Army, in the edition of 1863 ; in the laws of Congress enacted 
since that date; in the general orders of the War Department 
for their disbursement, and in the circulars from the Treasury 
Department, also issued since that date. General Order ^o. 68, 
War Department, 4th November, 1871, is a compilation or condensa- 
tion of the regulations for the disbursing of public money in force 
at that time. Even in this some slight changes have been made, but 
the foundation of the whole system is simple and easily understood. 
Disbursing officers of the Quartermaster's Department give bonds for 
the faithful performance of the duties in this respect. Acting assistant 
quartermasters, who are officers detailed to act as disbursing officers, 
and as assistant quartermasters, have been officers of the line generally, 
and also of other branches of staff departments, and do not give bonds 
for these quartermaster's funds. Moneys areremitted to quartermasters 
generally by drafts from the Treasury Department upon some public 
depositary. Every officer is bound to account for every dollar of public 
moneys received by him for disbursement. If he pays out, he must 
furnish a receipt and an account which will show to what the money 
has been applied. If he transfers it to some other officer, he must show 
the authority for the transfer and the receipt of the officer to whom the 
transfer is made. This relieves him of the accountability for the money 
transferred. Outside my own Department there are disbursing officers 
who do not give bonds. Officers of the Engineers are one example I 
do not think ordnance-officers give bonds. 

Question. General, you say that officers transferring money to those 
who receipt for their money have to show the authority therefor — how 
they obtained it. What designation of authority is that? 

Answer. The general order assigning the officer to duty, and some- 
times a special order to make that transfer. 

Question. Have you any civil agents in the Quartermaster-General's 
Department ? 

Answer. Koue to disburse money. 

Question. Between March 29, 1867, and July 1, 1872, were there any 
civil agents in the Department charged with the disbursement of 
public funds'? 

Answer. I think not. During the war we occasionally placed money 
in the hands of a captain of transports to disburse it. In one case 
money was given to an officer of a transport going to San Francisco 
from New York. Some money was given to the captain of this trans- 
port to pay his expenses to San Francisco. Whether that was before 
or since 1867, I do not remember. 

Question. Who was held responsible for the money ? 

Answer. I think the officer that transferred the money to him. 



8 

Question. Would such accounts have gone from your own office to 
the Treasury, or would they have been transmitted directly to the Trea- 
sury by the responsible officer ? 

Answer. All the accounts would have passed through my officers to 
the Treasury. In regard to that, on the 17th of July, 1862, Congress 
passed a law, or rather the law was approved, requiring all officers or 
agents of the United States disbursing money to forward their ac- 
counts direct to the proper accounting officers of the Treasury. That 
caused great inconvenience to the Treasury and to the Bureaus of the 
War Department ; and on the 2d of March, 18G7, an act was approved 
repealing so much of that act as provided that accounts and vouchers 
should be rendered to the Treasury, and made it the duty of officers to 
send them to the Bureau to which they pertain. After the examination 
by these Bureaus they were to be transferred to the proper accounting 
officer to be settled. From 1862 to 1S67 the practice was diflterent. It 
was a change from the old practice, which was a return to that of 1867. 

Question. Will you let me see the paper you hold in your hand "? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it is a circular issued by me in 1862. (The witness 
then handed to the judge-advocate a circular from the Quartermaster- 
General's Office, of date August 16, 1862, which was read, and is here- 
unto appended and marked as Exhibit E.) 

Question. General, in your circular of August 16, 1862, paragraph 2d, 
you say all disbursing officers and agents of you.r Department are di- 
rected to make their accounts in triplicate, one copy to the proper au- 
ditor, &c. Who are the agents to whom you refer in that circular ? Are 
they commissioned officers or civilians"? 

Answer. They must have been commissioned officers ; there were not 
at that time any civil disbursing agents. I think the words must have 
been used from the older customs of the Departments. In former times 
the Quartermaster-General's Department had some quartermaster's 
civil agents who disbursed money. 

Question. After the passage, March 2, 1867, of this resolution to fa- 
cilitate the settlement of accounts of disbursing officers, by which all 
such accounts went to the Quartermaster-General's Department, what 
was your responsibility with reference to the disbursement of moneys 
by your subordinates ? 

Answer. You will find the law there that speaks of it. I refer to 
sec. 4 of the act of May 22, 1812, which says that " The Quartermas- 
ter-General shall not be liable for any money or property that may come 
into the hands of the subordinate officers of his Department." 

Question. Your responsibility was limited, then, by the act of Con- 
gress? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Therefore your liability, as I understand it, to the Treasury 
of the United States with reference to these accounts was merely an 
administrative one"? 

Answer. That is all. The money was not placed in my hands ; the 
property was not placed in my hands. 

Question. If by any act of Congress quartermaster's funds had been 
payable to you, and you were required to disburse them, and the act 
made you responsible for the disbursement, what would have been your 
duties in the i)remises ? 

Answ^er. I suppose the same as any other disbursing officer ; if the 
money was placed in my hands, it would be necessary for me to account 
for it. If a man transferred it to me, I would have been responsible 
also. 



Cross-examination. 

By the Accused : 

Question. General, turn to section 3 — you have it in your hand — act of 
March 29, 18G7, page 28, (Exhibit B.) Whom do you understand to be 
the other disbursing officers of the Army referred to in this act ? 

Answer. It refers to the disbursing ofiicers generally. 

Question. That is, heads of bureaus? 

Answer. I think it refers to all. I think Congress simply intended 
that the same general regulations and rules shall be applied to all gov^- 
erning the disbursing of money, to which this act refers. 

Question. Then why not the officers themselves to whom the moneys 
are transferred at the Treasury, and those acting under them ? Why not 
these ? 

Answer. It includes them. The money shall be transferred according 
to the regulations governing the other officers of the Army. 

Question. I ask because you spoke of the requisition of the Secretary 
of War as requesting that the money be transferred to a certain officer, 
and this was approved by the Second Comptroller, and this officer was 
held responsible for its disbursement. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I ask if these are not the ones referred to. 

Answer. All disbursing officers, I think. 

Question. Did this requisition or request by the Secretary of War ask 
that money be transferred to the Quartermaster-General or to the offi- 
cer who should make the disbursement"? 

Ausw^er. To the officer who should make the disbursement. 

Question. And he was held responsible for its disbursement, and 
not the Quartermaster-General ? 

Answer. Yes. sir. 

By the Court : 

Question. If an officer of your Department were by law intrusted 
with large sums of money, for the safe custody and faithful disburse- 
ment of which he was held responsible, and which the nature of the 
service should require to be disbursed at places distant from each other, 
and for which disbursement the officer should find it necessary to ap- 
point agents or assistants, state if the accountability for sums dis- 
bursed by or through those agents or assistants would be with such 
agents or assistants or the officer who appointed or erai)loyed them. 

Answer. I do not consider that any commissioned offlcer of the Quar- 
termaster-General's Department would have a right to appoint a civil 
disbursing agent to disburse money. I can imagine a case where the 
appointment of a civil disbursing agent might be necessary, but no offi- 
cer would have the right to do it, except by authority from the Secre- 
tary of War. It is common enough for officers to intrust portions of 
their money to their clerks, but they are responsible for the acts of the 
clerks. If money is transferred to the proper disbursing officer, the re- 
ceipt of the officer acquits the one who has transferred it to him of re- 
sponsibility for its actual disbursement, excepting that it is his general 
duty to exercise the proper supervision to see that it is not wasted nor 
stolen. 

By a Member : -^ 

Question. Under section 3, approved March 29, 1867, do you under- 
stand that the Commissioner and the officers and agents under him 



10 

were to be governed by the same rules that govern the Quartermaster- 
Oeneral and the officers and agents under him I 

Question objected to ; and, on motion, the court was cleared to con- 
sider its propriety. 

Upon the doors being opened, the accused and his counsel being 
jiresent, the judge-advocate announced as the decision of the court that 
the question would not be asked. 

By the Court : 

Question. Have false vouchers or receipts ever passed through your 
office to the Treasury I If so, what course is taken, and who is held 
responsible ? 

Answer. The guilty i)arty is held responsible. Forged vouchers 
have passed through my office. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What course is taken upon discovery ? 

Answer. If detected, the matter would be reported to the Secretary 
of War. Officers of the Treasury and the officer making the disburse- 
ment would be held responsible. Endeavors would also be made to 
recover the money by prosecuting the forger or person committing the 
fraud. The officer could only be relieved by Congress. There is a 
special act of Congress under which, on settlement of his accounts, an 
officer may be relieved from charges for errors and overpayments, pro- 
vided the amount does not exceed a certain sum — I think $5,000. This 
act will expire next June. 

Question. What proportion of disbursing officers disbursing money in 
your Department do not give bonds f 

Answer. I think, at the present time, from a fourth to a fifth do give 
bonds. The remainder do not. 

Question. Those who give bonds are officers of the Quartermaster- 
General's Department proper ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I have heard that Mr. Calhoun, when Secretary 
of War, said that a commission of an officer in the Regular Army is a 
better protection to the public when the officer disburses money than a 
bond would be ; and in this I agree. I would also say that under the 
laws, rules and regulations, circulars and orders, the disbursement of 
public money has become a science, and in which one without expe- 
rience would be very apt to make mistakes. 

Col. Alexander E. Shiras then came into court, and was duly 
sworn according to law, and testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, rank, and present duties. 

Answer. My name is Alexander E. Shiras ; my rank is colonel and 
assistant commissary-general ; my present position is Acting Commis- 
sary-General. 

Question. How long have you been on duty in the Subsistence Depart- 
ment — about '! 

Answer. It would be very difficult to say. I have been on duty 
since the year 1846. I have been here twenty-seven years. 

Question. In the Commissary-General's Office '? 

Answer. In the Commissary-General's Office. 

Question. By whom is money disbursed in the Subsistence Depart- 
ment ? 

Answer. It is disbursed by the officers of the Department, under the 



I 

I'l 

orders of the Commissary-General. We have officers who belong to the 
Department, and then we have officers of the line who act in it. Officers 
of the line can be called upon to do duty in the Department. 

Question. What civilian agents have been in the Department for that 
purpose — to disburse money f 

Answer. None. During the Mexican war we had. some civilian agents; 
they were for special purposes. 1 do not recollect any during the late 
war. 

Question. When the civilian agents in the Subsistence Department 
disbursed public funds, to whom were they responsible for the safe- 
keeping and proper disbursement of these funds ? 

Answer. The agents themselves. They were appointed by the Secre- 
tary of War ; they gave no bonds ; the money was furnished them from 
the Secretary of War, and 1 should consider they were themselves re- 
sponsible. 

Question. Under what law or authority were these civil agents ap- 
pointed by the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. I do not know. I know of no law that authorizes them. It 
was a power exercised when 'we were suddenly called upon to perform 
duties beyond our usual duties. 

Question. On the 29th of March, 18G7, who disbursed money for the 
Subsistence Department f 

Answer. Disbursements were made by officers of the Department 
and the acting officers taken from the line. 

Question. From that time up to July 1, 1872, were there any disburs- 
ing agents other than officers in the Subsistence Department 'i 

Answer. I^ot in the Subsistence Department. 

Question. What were the rules and regulations governing officers of 
the Army in the Subsistence Department on the 29th of March, 1867, 
and between that time and the first of July, 1872 ? 

Answer. The most of the rules governing the disbursement of money 
will be found in the Revised Regulations of 1863, article 989, and in the" 
Regulations of the Subsistence Department, officially promulgated by the 
Secretary of War June 8, 1863, and published. There are circulars also 
that relate to the disbursing officers, but these have been modified 
somewhat since that time by additional orders. 

The witness then presented several orders and said : These have 
been issued by the Commissary-General or War Department, bearing 
upon these regulations. 

(The documents referred to were then offered without objection, and 
marked alphabetically as Exhibits F to K.) 

Question by the Judge Advocate : 

These rules and regulations which you have submitted present all the 
rules and regulations in existence from March 29, 1867, to July 1, 1872 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. They do, as tar as I can ascertain. 

Question. When false and fraudulent vouchers have been discovered, 
in the administrative scrutiny of your Department, in the accounts of 
disbursing officers of the Subsistence Department, who is held respons- 
ible ? 

Answer. I do not recollect any such occurrence there. I do not rec- 
ollect a single case of fraudulent vouchers, except during the war, and 
then they were detected.' 

Question. Then what course was taken ? 

Answer. The case was presented to the Secretary of War, and I know 
of nothing further being done. I have a case in my mind of a man who 
was commissary of subsistence in Tennessee, but, after he had been out 



12 

of the service for a long time, there came in a hirge pile of vouchers, 
purportiug to have been given by him. The vouchers were all disal- 
lowed, and the account went to the Third Auditor. I do not think it 
was ever reported. 

Question. Have you any recollection of pa;yTiients having been made 
in public funds on false and fraudulent vouchers ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I do not recollect any such. 

Question. What emi)loyes have the Subsistence Department outside 
of the officers of the Department, and acting officers f 

Answer. They have soldiers, hired clerks, laborers, and that is all. 

Question. By what authority are the clerks hired f 

Answer. By general authority of regulations 5 iu many cases by the 
Commissary-General himself. 

Question. The clerks are hired for what general purposes? 

Answer. They are sometimes employed for clerical duty; sometimes 
they are entrusted by officers with the keys of their safes, and sometimes 
with bank-books. They are also employed in weighing out stores, of 
which they keep account themselves. 

Question. Do most of the disbursing officers iu the Subsistence De- 
partment have clerks 1 

Answer. I think all excepting those stationed in the city of Wash- 
ington. 

Question. What authority have disbursing officers in the Subsistence 
Department to call upon clerks to aid them in the disbursement of 
moneys ? 

Answer. Under the general authority of their being employes. 

Question. When a disbursing officer in the disbursement of money 
calls upon his clerk to assist him, who do you, as Commissary-General, 
hold responsible for the proper disbursement of these funds ? 

Answer. The officer is responsible. 

Cross-examination. 

By the Accused : 

Question. How far — to what extent — would the Commissary-General 
himself be responsible in case the clerks of his own office were unfaith- 
ful in their trusts, such as he has just described ? 

Answer. It is hard to say. There is no way he could be unfaithful 
there. 

Question. Suppose the clerk should steal $500 from the office-safe. 

Answer. We have no office-safe and money to steal. We would hold 
him responsible, of course, and I suppose the Secretary of War would 
hold the Commissary-General responsible. 

Question. W^hat proportion of officers of the line are now, or have been 
within the time already designated, detailed to your Department for 
duty ? 

Answer. There is necessarily one at every military post. 

Question. State i jl round numbers ? 

Answer. Perhaps two hundred and fifty detailed. 

Question. About how many regular appointments ? 

Answer. About thirty. 

Question. Do these detailed officers give bonds 1 

Answer. No, sir, detailed officers do not. 

Question. Please explain how you, acting as Commissary-General, get 
money from the Treasury Department into the hands of these difl'erent 
disbursing officers f 



10 
O 

Answer. We make a request upon tlie Secretary of War that so mnch 
shall be remitted to the officer at sucli a place, and which shall be charged 
against him. The Secretary on that makes a requisition upon the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury. Tbe money is sent to tbe officer by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury at tbe request of the Secretary of War. The 
acting disbursing officers are generally not supplied from the Treasury 
Department, but by the cbief commissary of the Department in which 
their posts are situated. There are recruiting officers who get it directly 
from the Treasury. 

Question. Who details these officers that are detailed ? 

Answer. The commandiug officer of the post; sometimes the com- 
manding officer of the department or division. 

Question. What is the Commissary-General's duty with those detailed! 

Answer. The fact of the detail is reported to him, and if there is any 
reason for his action in the case, objection may be made. This is 
generally done through the Adjutant-General and through the military 
channels, of course. 

Question. Supposing one of these actiug disbursiug officers should 
prove unfaithful to his trust, would the Commissary-General be held 
responsible? 

Answer. I should not consider myself responsible if I had exercised 
due vigilance and care, but 1 would deem it my duty to call attention 
to any case which came to my knowledge in reviewing the accounts of 
that officer. 

Question. According to the customs of service, would the officers be 
justified in declining such a trust — to disburse mouc}'"? 

Answer, I should think a detailed officer might decline it with great 
propriety. Certainly it is not a desirable office to any party. 

Question. Is it soldierly so to decline? 

Answer. ISTo, I do not think it is. But disbursing money I think 
different from any other duty. 

Question. Did you know an officer of the Deiiartment by the name of 
Lieutenant-Colonel George W. Balloch before he was detailed to duty in 
the Freedman's Bureau? 

Answer. Officially I knew the general almost from the time he entered 
the service, I think, which was as a lieutenant in a Maine regiment. 
He was made a commissary of subsistence, and ranked as captain of 
volunteers, and from that became a corps commissary. He bore, in the 
opinion of the gentlemen of the office, a very high character for intel- 
ligence and integrity. About the time the war closed I knew him per- 
sonally, and had up to that time no reason to change my opinion of him 
iu any respect. His accounts were very accurate and very correct up 
to the time of their close. 

By the Court : 

Question. Up to what time? 

Answer. Up to the time, I think, when he was placed on duty iu the 
Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees, &c. His accounts were closed and no 
balance remained. All settled to the very last cent. 

Question. Does the Commissary-General select or appoint the clerks 
in his office, and can he be held responsible for any sudden wrong com- 
mitted by any of them? 

Answer. lie does not select nor does he appoint any clerks in his 
office. The privilege can be extended him by the Secretary of War as 
a favor but not as a right. 

Question. In case large sums of public money were placed in your 



14 

hands for the use of the Subsistence Department by act of Congress,, for 
the safe-keeping and disbursement of which you were made responsible 
toy the act making the appropriation, and yet which, from the very nature 
of the case, could not be disbursed in one place or by the hands of one 
person, would you consider it your duty to leave unexpended all of the 
money which you were not able to disburse by your hands, and thus de- 
feat the purpose of the law, or would you consider it a duty to appoint 
the agents necessary to execute the law even if their appointment has 
not been actually provided for by law ? 

Answer. If I was made by law responsible for the disbursing of a 
large sum of money, and was not furnished with agents to aid me in 
this, when it was impossible to do it by myself, I should take it for 
granted that I had the authority to employ agents to assist me. It 
would be my duty to comply with the law, of course. 

Question. In such a case, when you had yourself appointed agents to 
assist you in disbursing funds " for the safe custody and faithful dis- 
bursement of which you were by law responsible," would or not the account- 
ability to the Treasury Dej^artment be with you or with the agents acting 
under you ! 

Answer. If I had the appointment of them I should say yes, it would 
rest on me. 

Question. Is there not a law forbidding advances of public moneys 
except to disbursing officers or to officers ordered to distant stations f 

Answer. That I cannot say. So far as it refers to officers of the Army 
it is so; but w^hether it refers to any other employes or not I do not 
know. 

Question. If the agents were officers of the Army, or civil agents rec- 
ognized by the Treasuay Department as "disbursing officers," who would 
toe held responsible ? 

Answer. So far as I select an agent I am accountable, l)ut if an agent 
is sent to me I am not accountable for the man's conduct. 

Question. Do you consider the chief of your Department is accounta- 
■ tole for the acts of his subordinates, though said officers or agents toe 
appointed or selected on his recommendation ? 

Answer. They are all bonded officers, and I do not consider the Com- 
missary-General at all responsible for tlieir acts further than he can with 
reasonable vigilance notice their duty. 

Brigadier-General E. D. Townsend, Adjutant-General of the Army, 
then came before the court, and was then duly sworn according to law, 
and testitied as follows : 

By the Judge-Adyocate : 

Question. Please state your name, rank, and station. 

Answer. Edward D. Townsend ; Brigadier-General, Adjutant-Gen- 
eral of the Army ; stationed at Washington, D, C. 

Question. Please state how long you have been on duty in the Adju- 
tant-General's Office. 

Answer. I have been Acting Adjutant-General since March, 1863. 

Question. With reference to the disbursement of public moneys, what 
are your duties as Adjutant-General ? 

Answer. They are two-fold. First, the promulgation of the orders of 
the War Department, and the letters bearing upon the subject ; and, sec- 
ond, to audit the disbursements of recruiting officers, and the officers of 
the Adjutant-General's office, at department or division headquarters; 
and, at present, the disbursements in relation to the freedmeu's affairs. 

Question. Please state what rules and regulations were in force with 



15 

reference to the disbursement or holding of public monej'S on the 29th 
March, 1867, and thereafter up to July 1, 1872. 

Answer. The principal rules and regnlatious will be in the revised 
Army Regulations of 1863, under Article XLI, entitled "Public prop- 
erty, money, and accounts." There are also regulations governing the 
several departments, and the recruiting service, which will be found in 
the articles specially relating to those departments. I have in my hand 
what I believe to be a complete set of orders, circulars, and regulations 
from the time of issuing the original regulations in 1863 up to the date 
of the act thus spoken of, which is promulgated in General Orders 53, 
April 10, 1867 ; that is, a complete set of orders and regulations, with 
the exception of a circular and an order relating to the mode of trans- 
mitting recruiting accounts. 

^Question. With reference to the disbursement of money in the recruit- 
ing service, who have the authority to make those disbursements ? 

Answer. The estimate is made by the superintendent of the recruiting 
service for the gross amount of the funds required by the officers at the 
recruiting rendezvous within his superintendency. He usually desig- 
nates an officer on duty in his office to receive and receipt for and ac- 
count for these funds. The recruiting officers at rendezvous make esti- 
mates upon the superintendent of the recruiting service for the funds 
they require, and he causes the amounts to be remitted to them, accord- 
ingly, by his chief disbursing officer. The recruiting officers disburse 
the funds for the purposes specified by the regulations 5 having receipted 
for the funds which they receive, they become accountable to the Treas^ 
ury for those amounts ; the vouchers for the disbursements are their 
warrants for the disbursements, and their accounts are settled in the 
Treasury Department. The disbursing officer of the superintendent of 
the recruiting service also accounts to the Treasury Department for the 
amount received by him, and the receipts of the officers to whom he 
turns over the amounts are his vouchers for the disbursement. All the 
expenditures in the recruiting service, with oue exception, are made in 
this way. Accounts for the transportation of recruits from rendezvous 
to depot are made out and certified by the recruiting officers forwarding 
detachments ; these accounts are paid by the disbursing officer of the 
superintendent to the person named in the vouchers, the receipt being 
made in his name. 

Question. What designation of officers are employed in making these 
disbursements? 

Answer. Commissioned officers of the Army. 

Question. Any civilians ? 

Answer. None. 

Question. What is understood by you with reference to the adminis- 
tration of funds under your control as a disbursing officer? 

Answer. I understand a disbursing officer to be oue who receives 
money and pays it out, or turns it over to another officer. 

Question. May a civilian be a disbursing officer! 

Answer. It depends upon the law under which he acts. 

Question. Who disburses the contingent fund of the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Department ? 

Answer. The officers doing duty as assistant adjutant- general at each 
department or division headquarters. There is a special appropriation 
made for that fund ; the warrant for the money is sent direct to the 
officer who disburses, and he accounts to the Treasury for its disburse- 
ment. 

Question. When a disbursing officer is mentioned in your Depart- 
ment to whom is that term applicable? 



16 

Answer. It applies to any commissioned officer to whom public moneys 
are intrusted. 

Question. At what time did you come into administrative control of 
tbe Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. I have not the law, but the time is fixed by a general order 
which required the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau to be turned over 
to the Adjutant-General of the Army, and the ])roperty was received 
within a few weeks after. (Reading from the order of transfer in Ex- 
hibit B.) The act of Congress was approved June 10, 1872, for the 
transfer of the Freedmen's Bureau affairs to the War Department. It 
was promulgated in General Orders 55, 1872, (see Exhibit B,) dated June 
25, 1872. 

Question. Since you have had administrative power in the Freed- 
men's Bureau, who makes the disbursement of the public money for the 
support of that bureau 1 

Answer. There is a principal disbursing officer stationed in Washing- 
ton, Captain McMillan, of the Army, under the immediate direction of 
the Adjutant-General ; there are five or six officers detailed to different 
localities where many of the claimants have to be paid, and they are 
disbursing these funds. 

Question. Who is responsible for the safe-keeping and disbursement 
of these funds ? 

Answer. Tlie money is received on a Treasury certificate from the 
Second Auditor of the Treasury, who decides upon the claims. This 
Treasury certificate is cashed by the Paymaster-General, or a paymaster 
designated by him. The moneys thus passed into the hands in the first 
instance of Captain McMillan. From the Treasury certificate we know 
the name and locality of the claimant, and the amount allowed him. 
Captain McMillan, under the directions of the Adjutant-General, trans- 
mits to the disbursing officers of the various localities the claims which 
are allowed by the Auditor, and which they have to pay, and also the 
amount of the funds necessary to pay them. Captain McMillan accounts 
for the money which he receives and expends in his monthly accounts 
to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and the accounts are paid in 
current funds of the United States by the disbursing officer, who takes 
the receipt of the payee on his vouchers. 

Question. What civil agents, if any, are employed ? 

Answer. Kone, now. 

Question. The commissioned officers of the Army are the only dis- 
bursing officers ? 

Answer. Under my charge. 

Question. What authority, if any, would you have to turn over the 
funds to another clerk or civil agent, provided you could not in person 
disburse all the funds which you might receive under an appropriation ? 

Answer. I should have to do that at my own risk, as I know of no 
legal authority. 

Question. If you had in your hands the appointment of agents, where 
the law made no provision, and you coidd not make the necessary dis- 
bursements yourself, who would be responsible for the safe-keeping of 
such moneys '? 

Answer. I should have to get a special act of Congress to relieve me 
from responsibility in case of loss. I say that in the absence of any 
specific authority given me to appoint another agent. If there is a law 
for his appointment he becomes responsible. 

Question. These officers to whom moneys are sent, to whom are they 
accountable for the proper distribution of these moneys *? 



17 

Answer. They are accountable to the Treasury Department. They 
are also accountable, under the laws and regulations, to the Secretary 
of War for any misapplication of the moneys ; that is to say, any misap- 
plication from the use intended by the law. They are obliged "to show 
to the Treasury that they have expended the money for proper pur- 
poses. They are amenable to trial by court-martial if they fail to show 
that it was not from some loss beyond their power. 

Question. Do you know what were the rules and regulations between 
March 29, 18G7, and July 1, 1872, for the safe custody and faithful dis- 
bursement of the funds intrusted to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau ? 

Answer. These regulations, which I hold in my hand, consisting of 
general orders, circulars, and letters, are those which have been issued 
from the Adjutant-General's Office, and that is the only knowledge I 
have concerning those regulations. It is a habit to issue from the War 
Department the laws and regulations referring to any part of tie mili- 
tary establishment. 

(There being no objection on the part of the accused, the papers here 
referred to were then oflered in evidence and attached to the record, 
marked Exhibit L.) 

Question. Did the Secretary of War promulgate any special rules or 
regulations, between these dates, governing the Freedmen's Bureau 1 

Answer. He may have done so through the Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, but did not through me. 

Question. Do you know of the promulgation of any rules and regula- 
tions between those two dates as to the proper identitication of claim- 
ants by the disbursing officer having to make payments? 

Answer. It was impossible to have fixed rules and regulations in rela- 
tion to that subject. 

Question. Do you know what designation of officers were employed 
in the Freedmen's Bureau between these dates for the general purposes 
of the Bureau I 

Answer. I have very little knowledge of the aftairs of the Bureau — 
nothing but hearsay. 

Question. Since the Bureau has been in your control, what rules and 
regulations have been promulgated with reference to the proper identifi- 
cation of claimants ? 

Answer. All the rules will be found in those congressional documents, 
(Exhibit B.) As a general rule, the officers are cautioned to take every 
means to identify the claimant before paying. From the Treasury certi- 
ficate we have a description of the claimant, his company, regiment, 
«fcc. This and any other information serving to identify him we send to 
the disbursing officer. 

Question. If an imperfect and fraudulent payment should be made in 
the Freedmen's Bureau at present, who would be held responsible to the 
Treasury — the officer making the disbursement, yourself, or both i 

Answer. I should not, because I have given no receipt for any pro- 
perty ; the officer, making the disbursement, that is the general rule of 
disbursements. If the paymaster pays a fraudulent voucher he is held 
accountable, unless relieved by the Treasury Department or special act 
of Congress. There is one branch of disbursements which has been in 
the Adjutant-General's control which I inadvertently omitted to mention — 
the disbursement of the fund for " collecting, drilling, and organizing 
volunteers" — and I will say the same principles have been observed iu 
the disbursement of that fund as any other which I have described 
already. 

2hc 



18 

Question. Were any of these funds disbursed by civilians? 

Answer. No; oflBeers have been invariably detailed for that purpose. 

Cross-exa7nin((tlon. 

By the Accused : 

Question. Turn to page 23, General Townsend, (Exhibit B.) Please 
tell me who you regard as the successor of the Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, in accordance with this law ? 

Answer. I do not consider that there is any successor. I consider 
that the Freedmen's Bureau was broken up by the specific act of Con- 
gress, aud I don't think any ofBcer has since that time held the same 
position as the Commissioner did before the passage of that act. 

Question. Who do you regard as responsible for the execution of all 
acts and parts of acts pertaining to the collection and payment of 
bounties under this law ? 

Answer. I think the accountability attaches to each officer assigned 
to those duties under the authority of the Secretary of War, and that 
this officer is accountable to the Secretary of War for the proper per- 
formance of his duties, in the same way that every other officer of the 
Army is. 

Question. Did you give a bond? 

Answer. I have had no occasion to give a bond, as I have not been 
accountable for any money, and there is no law requiring it. 

Question. Did you require a bond of General Thomas M. Vincent ? 

Answer. Major Vincent has not been responsible for any money, con- 
sequently has not been required to give a bond. 

Question. How is it with Captain McMillan 1 

Answer. I do not think he has been required to give a bond. 

Question. How is it with the other officers '? 

Answer. There is no law requiring them to give bonds. 

Question. General Townsend, what course does the money take from 
the Treasury to those disbursing officers ? 

Answer. As I said before, the Second Auditor of the Treasury sends 
what we call a Treasury certificate in each case where a claim is allow^ed. 
This is cashed by the Paymaster-General or one of his officers, aud the 
money goes from him into Captain McMillan's hands. From Captain 
McMillan it goes to the several officers who pay the claims. 

Question. So far as the Treasury is concerned, then, when is this 
money disbursed ? 

Answer. I should suppose at the moment the claimant receives it. 

Question. To whom does the paymaster who received the money from 
the Treasury state his accounts ? 

Answer. I don't know. 

Question. To whom is the check for the money issued by the paymas- 
ter from the Paymaster-General's ? 

Answer. To Captain McMillan. 

Question. Who directed it to be paid to Captain Mc^Millan ? 

Answer. Captain McMillan was designated under the rules and reg- 
ulations approved by the Secretary of War, in this pamphlet. (Ex- 
hibit B.) 

Question. By whom was Captain McMillan appointed chief disbursing 
officer! 

Answer. By the Secretary of War. 



19 

Eedirect examination. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. General, what do I understand to be your opinion as to tbe 
effect of the act of June 10, ISTU, spoken of in your cross-examination, 
(Exhibit B, page 23 ?) Do you, in the language of the law, construe it 
the duty of the Secretary of War to cause the act to be carried into 
effect by detailing oflicers to perform the functions, or do you consider 
the Secretary himself responsible for the safe custody and faithful dis- 
bursement of funds appropriated for the Bureau. 

Answer. I consider him as called upon to detail officers to do it for 
him, and that the officers are accountable for all moneys they receive to 
the Treasury. This is in analogy to many acts of Congress requiring 
services to be done, which the Secretary does not execute himself, but 
designates other officers to perform it. 

By the Court : 

Question. Who is responsible for general management of this branch, 
of the War Department, since the Freedmen's Bureau ;vas turned over 
to the War Departiuent or to the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. War Department, General Orders No. 55, (page 22, Exhibit B,) 
June 25, 1872, directs that the business of the discontinued Freedmen's 
Bureau should be conducted through the Adjutant-General of the Army. 
By instructions, June 27, 1872, Maj. Thomas M. Vincent, assistant 
adjutant-general, was assigned to the immediate supervision and charge 
of the duties lately devolving upon the Bureau. The assignment of these 
duties to the Adjutant-General created a new branch of duties in his 
office, over which Major Vincent was placed in immediate charge. All 
the rules and regulations for conducting the affairs of the Department, 
prepared by Major Vincent, approved or corrected by the Adjutant- 
General, were finally adopted by the Secretary of War. Under these 
rules and regulations a responsibility attaches to each officer employed 
in the duties of the Freedmen's Bureau, so far as the sphere of his 
duties extei\ds. The Adjutant-General holds each one under him to that 
responsibility, and accounts to the War Dei)artment for the whole man- 
agement of the Bureau. 

Question. To what extent was the Secretary of War responsible for 
the management of the Freedmen's Bureau previous to June 30, 1872, 
and by what acts of Congress was he nuide so responsible ? 

Answer. The act approved March 3, 18(55, creates the bureau for the 
relief of freedmen and refugees. That act declares that '-there is hereby 
established in the War Department a Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, 
and Abandoned Lands," the regulations for the Government of which 
were to be prescribed by the head of the Bureau and approved by the 
President, who also, in section 1, was, by and with the advice and con- 
sent of the Senate, '• to appoint a commissioner for its management and 
control." The act does not exactly define the control or responsibility 
of the Secretary of War over the Bureau. As it in general terms makes 
it a Bureau of the War Department, the Secretary of War would have 
the same responsibility and control over it as over the other Bureaus of 
the War Department. 

At this point, at the request of a member of the court, the court was 
cleared. 

On the doors being opened. General Townsend proceeded with his an- 
swer as follows : Section 2 of the act authorizes the Secretary of War to 
direct such issues of provisions, clothing, and fuel as he may deem need- 



20 

ful for the immediate and temporary shelter of all destitute and sufler- 
ing refugees aud freedmeu, aud tlieir wives aud children, under such 
rules and regulations as he might direct. This defined the specific con- 
trol of the Secretary of War over the management of the Freedmen's 
Bureau in matters not generally pertaining to the administration of the 
affairs In the Army at large. With reference to specific acts governing 
the Freedmen's Bureau aud passed after Its establishment, unless the 
acts specifically fix the responsibility or control upon some other person, 
I conceive that the Secretary of War would possess, as 1 say, the same 
supervising control and authority over the Freedmen's Bureau that he 
did over other branches of the War Department. 

Becross-cxmnination. 

By the Accused : 

Question. Please turn to page oo, (Exhibit B,) under ])aragraph H, 
letter of the Secretary of War. Who was the successor, there reterred 
to, of General George W. Balloeh, late disbursing officer, (reading 
^' you will please give your authority " f ) 

Answer. L do not know upon that point. I suppose it was Intended 
by that order that the moneys and such Information relating to the 
funds as should enable the Adjutant-General to have the unfinished part 
of the business relating to those funds properly wound np, should be 
placed In the hands of Captain McMillan, who was the officer designa- 
ted to receive all funds relating to the Freedmen's Bureau. In that 
sense, as disbursing officer, I should judge Captain McMillan to be suc- 
cessor to the person to whom the letter was addressed, General George W. 
Balloeh. The letter calls for an explanation of a violation of the act of 
Congress. The reply to that, I should sup]iose, was Intended to be ad- 
dressed to the Secretary of War himself, who signed the letter to Gene- 
ral Balloeh. 

Question. General, was not Maj. J. M. Brown a successor to General 
Balloeh, or was Captain McMillan Intended ? 

Answer. I do not know ; the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau were 
not In my hands during the administration of either of these gentle- 
men. 

Question. Bo you know, general, whether Captain McMillan Is the suc- 
cessor referred to In Letter H, or Major Brown ? 

Answer. I think Captain McMillan. 

Question. You do not know whether Major Brown was the immediate 
successor of General Balloeh nor whetherGeneral Balloeh omitted to turn 
over the funds he mentioned In Letter H ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

On motion the court adjourned — to meet to morrow at 11 a, m. — at 3^ 
p. m. 



21 



SIXTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Kooms, 
Wa,shington, D. C, March 17, 1874. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment, at 
11 a. m. 

Present. 

1. Gen, William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Geu. ]\[. 0. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third U. S. Artillery ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eevuolds, third U. S. Cavalry ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth U. S. Inftintry ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judgeadyocate, U. S, A., judge-advocate of 
the court. 

Also, Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A. ; Edgar Ketchum and George 
W. Dyer, esqs., of counsel. 

The proceedings of the last meeting were read and apjiroved. 

Adjutant-General Townsend then came into court, and his examina- 
tion continued as follows : 

By the Accused : 

Question. General Townsend, please look at Exhibit B, page 39, Let- 
ter W, and also at this commuuication, [handing the witness a letter.]; 
Say whether this communication is the one intended by you aS W in 
Exhibit B. 

Answer. Without consulting the retained records in the Adjutant- 
General's Oflice, I cannot answer positively as to how the letter marked 
W, page 39, of Exhibit B, of the schedule, comes to vary from the one 
which General Howard has just submitted. The letter submitted by 
General Howard is signed by myself; I recognize that. It is word for 
word the one appended in the schedule, excepting the written copy 
says, " I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, E. D. 
Townsend, Adjutant-General." The printed copy reads, " I am, very 
respectfully, your obedient servant, Thomas M. Vincent, assistant ad- 
jutant-general." I presume there has been an inadvertent error, but I 
cannot account for it without refering to my retained copy. 

(Letter then read by judge-advocate and attached to record as Ex- 
hibit M.) 

By the Accused : 

Question. In referring in your letter to the words " to his successor, 
in the paragrai)h 1009," whom did you intend as being my successor? 

Answer, In my testimony yesterday, I said to the eftect that the act 
abolishing the Freedman's Bureau left no successor in the same cir- 
cumstances as the late Commissioner of the Freedman's Bureau. The 
acts governing the Freedman's Burean devolved upon him peculiar 
responsibilities, which, as I conceive, did not descend to any other officer 
when his Bureau was abolished. On page 23 of the schedule before the 
court will be found an extract from the appropriation act, whicli de- 
lines, as I suppose, who is in a technical sense the successor to the 
extent of disbursing moneys appropriated in that act; but I cannot say 
who was the successor in that sense to the Commissioner of the Freed- 
man's Bureau. That act appropriates a specified sum for a specific 



22 

purpose. In order to cany out the words of this law, it was, of course, 
necessary that some person should receive the records and funds of the 
former Commissioner, which this law required to be disbursed. Now, 
the officer designated by the Secretary of War to receive and disburse 
the fund under this specific act must be to that extent the successor of 
the Commissioner. He was responsible for the record under which those 
bounties and prize moneys, and other legitimate claims of the colored 
soldiers and sailors, had liceu partially paid under the direction of the 
Secretary of War. 

Question. Do you regard the letter signed by you an order to me to 
do something ? 

Answer. 1 do not. The letter says, " I have respectfully to invite 
your attention to a fact." 

Question. Please explain the difterence. General Townseud, between 
a military invitation and a military order to do something. 

Answer. The regulations require officers to do certain things ; the 
Adjutant-General might have no authority to order this officer to do 
such things, knowing that they would not have done them ; the Adju- 
tant-General invites their attention to the omission, with the view of 
submitting their reply and receiving orders from the legitimate au- 
thority; General Howard not being under the authority or orders of the 
Adjutant-General, this preliminary step was taken to enable him to ex- 
plain the omission which, if he had failed to do, it would become the 
duty of the Adjutant-General to report it to their common superior, the 
Secretary of War. I have already explained why the attention of the 
officer was respectfully called to his failure to certify outstanding debts 
to his successor. 

Question. Now, who is the successor referred to by you in your letter ! 

Answer. The Adjutant-General to a certain extent is the successor, 
and I would like at this point to give my views or opinion as to the 
successor in this case. 

By the court. Your meaning of the term successor is fully under- 
stood by the court. 

(Examination of General Townseud concluded.) 

The following letter was then read by the judge-advo(;ate : 

War Department, Ad.tutant-General's Okeice, 

Wash'mfjtoii, D. C, March 14, 1874. 
Maj. Asa 15. Gardnei:, 

Judge- Advocate Court of Inquiry, Booms 1816 F Street : 
Major: Referring to your conuniinication of the 13th instant, conveying (by an ex- 
tract from the proceedings) the request of the court that Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, 
■with his counsel, he granted jjernjissiop to have access, during the progress of the 
court, to the records of the Freednien's Bureau, for the purpose of refreshing his mem- 
ory in regard to matters which may be important to the investigation of the charges 
against him, I have the honor to inform you that the request has been approved by 
the Secretary of War. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Jdjutant-Gcueral. 



Paymaster-General Alvord then came into court, and was duly sworn 
according to law, and testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 
Qttestion. Please state your name, rank, and station. 
Answer. Benjamin Alvord; Paymaster-General of the Army; sta- 
tioned at Washington, D. C. 



23 

Que.stiou. General, on the 29tli of March, 1867, and from that date 
up to July 1, 1872, what were the rules and regnlations in your Depart- 
ment governing- the holdnig and disbursing of pul)lic funds! 

Answer. The law of 1846 and that of 1866 recpiire that moneys shall 
be deposited with the United States depositaries or assistant treasurers 
of the United States, and not drawn out except according to law, and 
accounts should be rendered monthly bj' the paymaster, with vouchers 
accordingly. These accounts are sent for revision to the office of the 
Paymaster-General. (To the judge-advocate :) In compliance with your 
request I have brought several papers. I have with me the circulars 
and orders relating to the Pay Department, and the Paymaster's Manual, 
of the editions of 1867, 1869, and 1871. As bearing upon the responsi- 
bility of officers in the Pay Department in the disbursing of public 
funds, the several acts of Congress may be found in the memorandum 
I have made from the laws relating to the Army. [Handing the same to 
the judge-advocate, and which were read to the court, and appended 
respectively as Exhibits O and N, the Paymaster's Manuals not being 
herein included as marked exhibits, but tor reference.] 

Question. What assistants have paymasters in the performance of 
tbeir principal duties ? 

Answer. Each has a clerk, known as the paymaster's clerk, an office 
created by law. 

Question. What authority has a paymaster's clerk to disburse money 
in the Pay Department ? 

Answer. Not any. If done at all, it is done by mere sufferance, and 
not according to authority, regulation, or law. 

Question. Do you know any instance where the paymaster has in- 
trusted funds to his authorized clerk with which to make payments 1 

Answer. Under extraordinary emergencies of the service, I have, 
in my own case, intrusted payments to my clerks, especially when 
a portion of the command was detached and about to start on a scout, 
the larger portion being paid by myself; l)ut I always considered 
myself responsible for his acts. 

Question. Who are held responsible for the safe custody and disburse- 
ment of the funds in the example you have mentioned? 

Answer. The paymaster is responsible. 

Question. Whom would you, as Paymaster-General, hold responsible ? 

Answer. The commissioned officer, or paymaster. 

Question. Is there any authority, rule, or regulation by which the 
paymaster's clerk could become responsible to the Treasury for the safe 
custody and faithful disbursement of paymaster's funds; if so, what 
rule or regulation is there f 

Answer. No such rule or regulation in existence. As I said before, 
such disbursement might occur under some extraordinary circumstances, 
but I have always deemed the officer responsible for his acts. 

Question. Between March 29, 1867, and July 1, 1872, were these same 
rules and regulations in force with reference to the responsibility of 
paymasters and paymasters' clerks, as at present ? 

Answer. They have been. 

Question. Does not a later act of Congress than the one of 1868 i>ro- 
vide for the appeal by the Secretary of War from the decisions of the 
accounting officers of the Treasury in the Court of Claims ? 

Answer. The act of June 25, 1868, section 7, provides for an appeal to 
the Court of Claims whenever any claim is made upon said Department, 
involving disputed facts or controverted questions of law, when the 
amount in controversy exceeds $3,000, or where the decision will affect 



24 

a class of cases or furnish a precedent for the future action of any 
executive department. 

Direct examination closed. 

Cross-exa7n ination. 

By the Accused : 

Question. Suppose the paymaster's clerk was ordered by the Secre- 
tary of War to make disbursements, would his proper paymaster be 
responsible for the custody of the funds. 

Answer. I think morally he would be in a measure relieved from re- 
sponsibility, but not legally. 

Question. In your Bureau do you not give a bond, and do not pay- 
masters give bonds, each prescribed by law, aiul has not the measure 
of responsibility of paymasters been determined to be limited by such 
bond ? 

Answer. The law authorizes and the Revised Army Regulations pre- 
scribe that the War Department shall fix the amount of the bond. The 
Paymaster General is not required to give a bond; paymasters give 
bonds, assistant paymaster-generals give bonds ot $-tO,000, and pay- 
masters of $20,000 each respectively. 

Question. Are you personally responsible for any defaidting paymas- 
ters within your bureau ? 

Answer. I presume I am morally responsible, but not pecuniarily, as 
110 bond has ever been required by law or regulations of the Paymaster- 
General. I say morally responsible in this, that if any paymaster 
should commit any offense, growing out of lack of vigilance in the dis' 
charge of the duties of my offlce, I think I would be responsible in a 
military point of view. 

Question. When the Freedmen's Bureau was turned over to the War 
Department what paymaster was designated to disburse the money in 
connection with the Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. I cannot remember. I should have to obtain that informa- 
tion from my office. I took charge of the ofltice of Paymaster-General 
the 1st of July, 1872 ; therefore the answer I make is from knowledge 
of the records, and not from my personal knowledge. Major J. L. 
Hodge, I think, had charge of that branch from the time the Freed- 
men's Bureau was established down to the 9th of September, 1871, and 
Major W. B. Rochester until the 29th of September, when Major Charles 
T. Larned discharged the duties. Major J. H. Eaton is now, and has 
been for some time, making that class of payments. 

Question. Do you know to whose order these paymasters draw their 
checks in payment of bounties to colored soldiers? 

Answer. They have been made to the order of the Commissioner of 
the Freedmen's Bureau, and up to the 1st of July, 1872, to the order of 
Gen. O. O. Howard, and since that date to the order of Captain Mc- 
Millan, of Third Artillery. 

By the Court : 
Question. Is, or not, the Paymaster-General charged personally with 
the custody and the disbursement of the public funds "I 
Answer. He is not. 
Examination closed. 

The court then took a recess of ten minutes. On re-assend)ling, all 
being present as before — 



25 

Lieut. Col. John G. Foster, of the engineers, was called, and duly 
sworn according to law, and testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, rank, and station 1 

Answer. John G. Foster, lieutenant-colonel, corps of engineers ; on 
temporary duty in the office of the engineers; I am the senior officer in 
the office daring the absence of the Chief of Engineers. 

Question. Between March 29, 1867, and July 1, 1872, what were the 
rules and regulations governing the disburseuients of public funds by 
officers of tlie engineers ? 

Answer. The latest rules governing the disbursement of moneys are 
found in the Revised Regulations of the Army for 186L and 1863. The 
regulations of the Corps of Engineers are not contained in full io the 
regulations of 1863, but are in those of 1861. The instructions with 
regard to minor points of regulation have been issued from time to time 
by the Chief of Engineers, and have been embodied in a series of orders, 
one for each year. 

Question. Who disburses money applicable to the Engineer Depart- 
ment ! 

Answer. All officers of the corps are required by law when in charge 
of works to disburse the moneys appertaining to those works; hence all 
officers in charge of works disburse for the works in their charge. In 
addition there have been disbursements made by agents, special agents, 
properly appointed for the purpose. 

Question. What description of officers were tliese special agents, and 
how were they appointed f 

Answer. Those of whom I have knowledge are the following : First, 
Mr. Clarence King, who has ch^Jirge of the survey along the line of the 
Pacific Railway, known as the survey of the fortieth parallel. He was 
intrusted with the disbursement of its funds for that survey. The next 
disbursing agent is Mr. James Eveleth, disbursing agent under the 
special directions of the Chief of Engineers, in the office of the Chief of 
Engineers. Third, Mr. S. T. p]mmons was, during the last year, di- 
rected to take charge of the disbursements formerly under the charge 
of Mr. Clarence King, and the funds for the survey of the fortieth par- 
allel have been disbursed by him since that time. Mr. Emmons fur- 
nishes a bond. I do not recollect, any other case of civil disbursing- 
agents. Mr. King was appointed by the Chief of Engineers, with the 
authority of the Secretary of War, to have charge of the survey of the 
fortieth parallel. Mr. Eveleth was appointed by the Cliief of Engineers 
in 1837, whether or not with the approval of the Secretary of War does 
not appear upon record. Mr. Emmons was directed to relieve Mr. 
Clarence King of his disbursements by the authority of the Secretary of 
War. Each of these disbursing agents furnish bonds in an amount 
judged sufficient by the Chief of Engineers. There are other officers 
whose extensive duties undoubtedly require a similar course, as, for in- 
stance, Lieut. Col. Q. A. Gilmore, stationed in New York City, whose 
duties extend from that city to the Saint John's River, in Florida, and 
who must necessarily in some cases intrust funds for the payment of 
certain dues to the hands of his subordinates. 

Question. What was their status with reference to the Army '! 

Answer. Mr. King's position is that of a civil engineer and geologist. 
Mr. Emmons is a geologist, and Mr. Eveleth is a clerk in the Engineer 
Department. 

Question. Who was held responsible l\v the accounting officers of th& 



2,6 

Treasury for the safe ' custody and disbursement of the funds turned 
over to these civil agents whom you have named ? 

Answer. They and their securities are held responsible. 

Question. What is the responsibility involved to the Chief of Engineers 
with reference to the disbursement of moneys now or heretofore by 
either of these gentlemen ? 

Answer. He has the responsibility of being the oflicer in command of 
the corps, and it being his duty to supervise all actions of liis subordi- 
nates. He has not a moneyed responsibility, so far as the disbursements 
by these civil agents are concerned. 

Question. How do their accounts reach the Treasury ? 

Answer. They reach the Treasury iu the same way, through the Engin- 
eer Department, as do all accounts of engineer officers. 

Question. Under what statute, if any^ were these agents appointed to 
disburse moneys ? 

Answer. Under the general statute of 1854, which authorizes special 
agents to be appointed in the disbursement of public money. Section 
14 of the act of August, 1854, chap. 242 ; act of Juue 23, 18G6, chap. 
138, section 3, and the act of March 2, 1867. 

Questiou. What was the nature of the duties of these three civil 
agents ? 

Answer. Mr. King had charge of all parties engaged in the survey of 
the fortieth parallel, extending along that portion of the Pacific Railway 
from the Sierra ]!^evada to Cheyenne, making a strip on each side of 
the road about 50 miles broad. The survey is a topographical survey, 
combined with a thorough geological survey of that belt and the adja- 
cent mountains. 

It was commenced under an appropriation for surveys for military 
defenses, and that appropriation being insufficient a subsequent act 
was passed authorizing the publication to be made from the unexpended 
balances of appropriations for the subsistence of the Army. Mr. Em- 
mons, assistant to Mr. Clarence King, was directed to take charge of 
the disbursements upon the failure of Mr. King's health. 

Mr. James Eveleth has been many years a clerk in the engineer office, 
and, in 1837, he was directed by the Chief of Engineers to take charge 
of certain balances and to disburse them under the direction of the 
Chief of Engineers, and since then he has continued to disburse in the 
engineer's office, in payment of the services of employes iu the office, 
and various others, the payment of which is ordered by the Secretary 
of War ; as, for instance, for advertisements for works of river and 
harbor improvements requiring payment here, the vouchers being sub- 
sequently transferred to the officers having charge of the works for 
which the advertisements were published. He disburses in this way 
small amounts from almost every appropriation for works under the 
charge of the Engineer Department. He furnished bonds in 1872 ; 
before that he was not required to give bonds. 

Question. Do you know whether any of these were employed in 
other capacities between March 29, 1807, and July 1, 1872 ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. For example, an officer of the engineers may have charge 
of works in process of completion, say in New York Harbor, and he has 
necessarily employed on these works a large number of laborers and 
others, civil engineers and assistants, who are required to be paid each 
mouth. Who makes those disbursements "? 

Answer. In all cases of that kind the payment is made by the officer 
iu charge of the works, either actually by his own hand or by that of 



27 

an assistant. In all cases the disbursing officer being held strictly ac- 
countable for the money paid. 

Question. Have you any ruling of the Chief of Engineers upon that 
subject '? 

Answer. I have none that I can refer to at present. The custom is 
well established, and is based upon the general law requiring otMcers in 
charge of works to make disbursements for those works. 

Question. Have you any record of advances of money made to sub- 
ordinates in effecting payments as you describe ? 

Answer. Cases have arisen. I can name one of which I do not find 
any official record, but the facts connected with which are within my 
own knowledge — that of Major C. B. Comstock, in charge of the survey 
of the Northern and Northwestern Lakes. In the payment of the cur- 
rent expenses of the large number of field-parties, sometimes over a 
hundred miles distant from each other, and from the office of Major 
Comstock at Detroit, he was and is obliged to supply funds to some of 
the chiefs of parties, which sums he is responsible for. To relieve 
himself of this responsibility he made application to obtain authority 
to transfer officially such funds as were needed to these subordinates, 
but the request was declined, not being in accordance with the law re- 
quiring the officer in charge of a work to make all the disbursements 
for it. Another case is tliat of Capt. C. W. Howell, who has charge of 
works for which he disburses money in the States of Arkansas, Mis- 
souri, Louisiana, and Texas, at i)oints a hundred miles distant. He is 
obliged, in carrying on those works, to intrust to his subordinate officers," 
or civil assistants in the immediate charge of the works, sums of money 
at various points to pay accounts requiring immediate payment. The 
various sums in the hands of his subordinates are reported in weekly 
cash-statements, giving such information of the amounts in the hands 
of these officers or assistants as is necessary ; but he is not relieved by 
this from his own responsibility for the safe custody of the funds and 
disbursements. 

Question. Colonel, what are those papers in your hand ? 

Answer. These papers relate to the transfer of disbursements from 
Mr. Clarence King to Mr. S. F. Emmons. This letter is an application 
of Mr. King's to have the disbursements transferred to Mr. Emmons on 
account of his failing health. The recommendation of the Chief of En- 
gineers upon application was approved by the Secretary of War, and 
Mr. Emmons was ordered to receive the funds irom Mr. King for the 
faithful disbursement of which he gave a bond for $10,000. The other 
paper relates to Mr. James Evelith's appointment as disbursing agent, 
giving all the facts and circumstances. 

(Admitted without objection, and copies appended to the record as 
Exhibit M.) 

Question. Do you know of any instance where a rule has been nnide 
by the Chief of Engineers that civil assistants should not be held ac- 
countable for the responsibility for the disbursement of funds, or rather 
that the officer receiving the money should be held responsible ? 

Answer. I don't know that I can refer to any ride made officially. I 
know of only one case of a civil assistant having any moneys in his 
hands. The money is usually intrusted to officers of the Engineer Corps 
acting as assistants. The rule has been constant and has never been 
infringed upon. 

Question. No instance in your own history? 

Answer. No, sir. 

(Direct examination closed.) 



28 

Cross-examination. 

By the Accused: 

Question. Do any of the officers of J^ngineers give bonds? 

Answer. They do not. 

Question. What do yon mean by ''responsibility'' of the officers of 
Engineers for default of civil agents in disbursing money ; what kind 
of responsibility ! 

Answer. I mean that they are responsible for the full amount of 
money that may be lost through the default of such assistant, either 
official or civilian. It is a moneyed responsibility. 

Question. What is the nature and extent of the responsibility of 
the Chief of Engineers ! 

Answer. The Chief of Engineers is responsible only so far as his du- 
ties as Chief of Engineers extend. It is his duty to exert all vigilance 
to insure a faithful performance of duty on the part of disbursing offi- 
cers. He has no money responsibility for these disbursements. The 
responsibility attaches to the disbursing officers themselves. 

(Question. In the case of officers without bonds, how (;an the Govern- 
ment enforce their liabilities I 

Answer. On the failure of an officer to perform his duty he is liable 
to court-martial and punishment by the court. 

(Question. In the instance of the disbursiugxlerk in youv Bui^eau, 
does he account directly to the Treasury f 

Answer. His accounts go to the Treasury precisely as the accounts 
of all disbursing officers of the corps, thi'ough the Chief of Engineers. 

Question. Is money transferred to him by the Treasury in the same 
manner as to the other disbursing officers ? 

Answer. Precisely in the same manner. 

(Question. Suppose Mr. Eveleth to have been appointed as disbursing 
clerk by the Secretary of War, would the Chief of Engineers then be 
responsible for Mr. Eveleth's default in disbursing public money ? 

Answer. The law of March 3, 1853, provides for a disbursing clerk to 
be appointed in the War, Navy, and other Departments. If the Secre- 
tary of War appoints a disbursing clerk in the War Department, I can- 
not conceive that the Chief of Engineers would have anything to do 
with it. But, if appointed to serve in the Engineer Department, as in 
Mr. Eveleth's position, I cannot see that the Chief of Engineers would 
be responsible for him otherwise than as is his dnty to supervise every- 
thing in his Department. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is, or not, the Chief Engineer, as such, personally a dis- 
bursing officer of engineer funds? Has he, or not, any pecuniary ac- 
countability to the Treasury Department as Chief Engineer ? 

Answer. I do not know that he disburses any engineer funds. He is 
not accountable pecuniarily that I am aware of. 

Question. Who appoints the civil agents, such as you describe those 
who are intrusted with public money by Colonel Comstock, Major 
Howell, and General Gilmore ! 

Answer. They do not appoint civil agents as such. They have to 
intrust money to the chief of parties in the field, usually to officers of 
engineers; there is no appointment of agents. They simply intrust 
to their assistants the sums of money that are necessary in effecting 
payments. 

Question. Cannot each disbursing officer select his own agent ? 

Answer. Yes. 



29 

Question, lu case of a defalcation or misappropriation of public funds 
in the possession of Mr. Eveletb, disbursing agent of the Engineer De- 
partment previous to bis baving given bonds, wbo would bave been 
responsible pecuniarily for tbe loss of money to tbe United States'? 

Answer. In my opinion, be, in tbe first instance, would bave been ac- 
countable personally, and after him tbe officer who certified to tbe account, 
in case the default was in consequence of defective or false accounts. 
In case of direct default, I know of no one who would be account- 
able except Mr. Eveletb himself. If tbe default Mas caused by, or in 
consequence of, any order be bad received from tbe Chief of Engineers 
or other otticer, such order would hold that ofiicer responsible for the 
loss; but, if it was a simi)le defalcation, no one would be pecuniarily 
responsible except himself. 

Question. In the cases of Messrs, King and Eveletb, civil disbursing 
agents appointed under act of 1854, how are tbe requirements of tbe 
act of 18U3 met, i)rohil)iting advances of public moneys, except as tbere- 
iu pro\ided, that is, under the special action of tbe President ? 

Answer. The proviso to section 1 of the act of January 31, 1823, 
authorizes the President and Secretary of War, acting for bim, to autb- 
orize tbe advances to disbursing officers to tbe extent that may be nec- 
essary to the faithful and prompt discbarge of their respective engage- 
ments. Advances are made monthly to every disbursing officer. 

Question. Do you regard these persons as disbursing officers of the 
Army ? 

Answer. I hardly know bow to answer that question. Mr. Emmons, 
although disbursing from old, unexpended balances for tbe subsistence 
of the Army, is doing it for tbe publication of the results of the survey 
of tbe 40th parallel, a civil work, carried on under tbe War Department. 
Mr. Clarence King atone time disbursed from the appropriation for sur- 
veys for military defenses, yet it was in favor of his survey. Mr. James 
Eveletb disburses from nearly all the appropriations for fortifications, 
.surveys, and for river and barbor improvements. Neither disburses 
from any regular appropriation for the support of the Army. In my 
opinion, neither are, properly speaking, disbursing agents of tbe Army. 

Question. Is not the advance of public money to the civil agents of 
engineer officers prohibited by the law of 1823, (Scott's Digest, para- 
grapb 39 ?) 

Answer. No, sir. Every officer in charge of a work has to conduct it 
in tbe most effective way, to do which he may bave to employ agents to 
assist bim. In the performance of bis duties he may have to intrust 
money to officers or assistants to ])ay certain accounts which be cannot 
pay personally. 

Question. Do you know about how much Mr. King bas disbursed! 

Answer. I cannot tell without referring to bis accounts ; but I should 
think about one hundred and fifty tliousand dollars. 

Examination and testimony read to witness for correction. 

On motion the court adjourned at 3 p. m. to meet to-morrow, at 11 
o'clock. 



30 



SEVENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street. 

Washington, D. C, March 18, 1874. 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders aud adjournment, at 
11 o'clock a. m. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. MaJ. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

."3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery ; 
0. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate U. S. A., judge-advocate; 

Also, Brig. Geu. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Edgar 
Ketchum and George W. Dyer, esqs., of counsel. 

The judge-advocate stated that Mr. Robert W. C. Mitchell had re- 
signed his position as reporter to the court, in consequence of circum- 
stances beyond his control, which rendered such resignation necessary. 

The judge-advocate then said that, under the 28th section of an act 
of Congress approved March 3, 1863, he would, with the permission of 
the court, appoint Albert E. Cochran, of the New York common pleas, 
reporter to the court. 

There being no objection, 

Mr. Albert E. Cochran, in open court, was then duly sworn faithfully 
to perform his duty in recording the proceedings of and testimony 
taken before this court. 

The judge-advocate then read the minutes of the proceedings of yes- 
terday as far as the testimony of Lieutenant-Colonel Foster, which were 
approved, with the understanding that the balance of the minutes 
should be read at the next meeting of the court. 

Maj. S. V. Benet was then called into court, and, having been duly 
sworn in the presence of the accused, was examined and testified as fol- 
lows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, rank, and station. 

Answer. S. V. Benet, major of ordnance. Acting Chief of Ordnance, 
stationed in Washington, in the Ordnance Bureau. 

Question. What are your present duties with reference to the Chief 
of Ordnance °? 

Answer. I have charge of the affairs of the Ordnance Department, and 
perform the duty of Chief of Ordnance. In consequence of the illness 
of the Chief of Ordnance, I am assigned to duty by direction of the Pres- 
ident of the United States. 

Question. Between the 29th of March, 1867, and the 1st day of July, 
1872, what were the rules and regulations of the Ordnance Department 
covering the disbursement or safe cus^tody of public funds appropriated 
for that Department ? 

Answer. I think I have here nearly all the papers that have any 
hearing upon the subject — I believe the whole of them — in the shape of 
ordnance memoranda aud printed circulars from the Ordnance Bureau. 
That, I think, covers the answer to that question. 



(The witness produces papers. There being no objection on the part 
of the accused, the papers produced are considered as read, and are 
attached to the record and marked Exhibit P.) 

Question. Are there any civilian agents or employes in the Ordnance 
Department ? 

Answer. Plenty of them. 

Question. Between the dates I have mentioned, what rules and regu- 
lations were there in the Ordnance Department, if any, applicsjble to the 
disbursement of public funds by the civilian agents or employes of the 
Ordnance Department ? 

Answer. We have no civilian agents or employes who are disbursing 
officers of the Ordnance Department who disburse any amounts. 

Question. If, in the transaction of his public duties, it became neces- 
sary for an officer of ordnance to make payments at various points at 
some distance from each other, on the last day of the month, and it 
would be impossible for him to be present at each of those places at sucb 
date, what authority, if any, would an ordnance officer have to transfer 
to any of his agents or employes funds to make payments at such par- 
ticular points ? 

Answer. He would have no authority. He would do it, if he did it,. 
upon his own responsibility. 

Question. Did the same rule apply between the dates I have men- 
tioned, of March 29, 1867, and July f, 1872? 

Answer. Yes. There was no authority that I am aware of. 

Question. Do you know of any instance where an ordnance officer 
has, upon his own responsibility, in order to make necessary payments, 
been under the necessity of transmitting funds to civilian agents or em- 
ployes for that purpose? 

Answer. I know of none. But there is one case I can recall just now 
that probably has some bearing upon it, in which an officer gave a cheeky 
if I remember it, or a draft, upon the treasury in New Orleans — gave it 
to his clerk to go to oSTew Orleans and cash it. The clerk disappeared 
with the money and the officer had to go to Congress for relief. 

The court was here cleared for deliberation ; upon the doors being 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present — 

The president said to the accused: 

The court prefer, if during the course of the trial you desire to discuss 
any legal point, that you make a request of the court to be heard through 
your counsel, when your request will be entertained. For the present 
the court has decided that you may examine the witnesses through 
counsel- 

Cross-examined. 

By the Accused, through his counsel : 

Question. Do ordnance officers give bonds ? 

Answer. Ordnance store-keepers give bonds, but ordnance officers do 
not. 

Question. Is a store-keeper an officer under the law ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I refer to act of Congress approved July 28, 1866, 
to increase and fix the military peace establishment of the United 
States, section 21. 

Question. How is money paid into the hands of ordnance officers by 
the Treasury, and in case of default who is held responsible f 

Answer. Where moneys are required at any particular station, the 
commanding officer thereof makes an estimate once a quarter, and in 
certain cases a special estimate during the quarter, to the Ordnance 



32 

Bureau, aud there those estimates are examined. In the estii^ate he 
not only makes an estimate for the quarter, but calls for the particular 
amount of money that he desires for each of the mouths of that quarter. 
Upon examination at the Ordnance Bureau, if the Chief of Ordnance 
decides that the quantity of money shall be sent to him, the money is 
sent in each month by making a requisition upon the War Department 
to call upon the Treasury for this money, to be sent to the officer, or 
placed to his credit. The money in that way gets into his hands. The 
officer is held responsible. I will state further, on that point, that the 
act of July 17, 1802, together with the act of August 6, 1846, provides 
for the punishment of officers or agents who shall receive public money; 
aud, therefore, under the laws, they are liable to punishment. 

Question. What is the nature and extent of the responsibility of the 
Chief of Ordnance in such a case ? 

Answer. 1 take it that his responsibility is of a limited nature. The 
Chief of Ordnance is not, by any law that I have been able to find or 
h(?ar of, held responsible for the custody or disbursement of money. 
Therefore, where moneys are placed in the hands of a disbursing officer, 
or an officer for disbursement, the Chief of Ordnance is responsible, I 
think, to this extent, and no more : that he must see that the rules, regu- 
lations, and laMS that cover the disbursement and custody of money 
shall be rigidly enforced ; that he will see that only sufficient moneys 
are placed in the hands of disbursing officers during the month or during 
the <]uarter that are absolutely necessary for the carrying on of the 
<luties that are intrusted to him, and that when his accounts come to 
the Ordnance Bureau they shall be closely scrutinized, in order to see 
that the disbursements have been properly made according to law ; that 
the expenditures have been made properly and honestly, aud that all 
the rules and regulations have been carried out by the disbursing offi- 
cer. As long as the Chief of Orduauce performs that duty strictly, I 
think his responsibility after that ceases. 

By the Court : 

Question. Did the ordnance store-keepers, before 1806, disburse any 
public money ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; and I might, in continuation of that answer, refer 
to the regulations for the Ordnance Department of 1834, page 6, section 
22: "It shall be the duty of the paymaster and store-keeper at each of 
the national armories to make all disbursements,'' and so forth. 

Question. Was that in force up to 1800 ? 

Answer. I suppose it was in force until modified by the regulations 
of 1803, at least in the regulations of 1803 it is not stated in terms as 
it is in the regulations of 1834. Here is the regulation of 1852 for the 
Ordnance Department. It says : "A military store-keeper of the Ord- 
nance Department shall, when required by the Secretary of War, in 
addition to his other duties, disburse the funds for the ordnance service 
at a post where he may be stationed ; and he shall, in that case, give a 
bond, with approved security, in such sum as the Secretary of War 
may direct, for the faithful performance of his duty." The regulation of 
1863, paragraph 989, says that "All officers of the Pay, Commissary, and 
Quartermaster's Departments, and military store-keepers, shall, previous 
to their entering on the duties of their respective offices, give good aud 
sufficient bonds to the United States fully to account for all moneys 
and ijublic properties,'' &c. ; showing that even then they were con- 
Jbidered so. 

Question. Who was responsible for the money disbursed by ordnance 
Atore-keepers previous to 1866 "^ 



33 

Answer. Tbe store-keeper himself was responsible, because uutler 
all the regulations that I have consulted he had to give bonds for the 
proper discharge of his duty ; and the act of August 23, 18-42, states 
that paymasters and military store-keepers shall give security for the 
faithful discharge of their duties in such sums as the Secretary of War 
shall prescribe. They^ were bonded ofiticers, therefore. 

Question. What amount of bonds were given 1 

Answer. The regulations of 1834 iix the bonds in the sum of $15,000, 
but the act of August 23, 1842, states that they shall give security for 
the faithful discharge of their duties in such sum as the Secretary of 
War shall prescribe. At present our store-keepers give bonds ranging 
from $15,000 to $40,000, and they renew the bond every four years. 
They did give bonds, but what the amounts were I cannot answer. 

Question. How are ordnance store-keepers appointed ? 

Answer. I believe as other officers — appointed by the President, by 
and with the advice and consent of the Senate. 

Question. In case an appropriation is made by law for the safe-keep- 
ing and disbursement of which an ordnance officer is made responsible, 
and which, in the nature of things, could not be disbursed by the hands 
of the officer himself, would you consider it the duty of such officer to 
keep unexpended all of such money as he could not himself disburse, and 
thus leave the law unexecuted; or would you consider it his duty to 
employ the agents absolutely necessary to make the expenditures re- 
quired by the law, even should there be no express provision in the law 
for the appointment of agents ! 

Answer, M}- opinion is in such a case, were I the officer, I should re- 
fer the matter to higher authority before I took any action upon it ; and 
I certainly would recommend, as the only course to be pursued, to em- 
ploy the necessary agents for the purpose of disbursing this money. In 
the event of there being no higher authority I certainly would take the 
responsibility of expending thatmoue^^ in the spirit in which it was ap- 
propriated. 

(Question. In such a case, with whom, under the rules and regulations 
governing the disbursing officers of the Army, would the responsibility 
for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds lie ! 

Answer. I should think that the officer would be responsible, in my 
opinion. I should think I would be held responsible. The fourteenth sec- 
tion of the act of August 4, 1854, chapter 242, now shown me, I think, 
would modify my answer. 1 was not familiar with that law. I may 
have seen it. If the special agents gave sufficient bond and security for 
the performance of their duty, then I think it would come pretty nuich 
to the same case as it is now with a head of a Bureau — that he would 
have to be diligent to see that all the rules and regulations governing 
the disbursement of jnoneys have been strictly carried out. 

Question. Were the civilian ordnance store-keepers, previous to 
1800, recognized by the Ordnance Department and the Treasury De- 
l^artment as disbursing officers or agents of the Army? 

Answer. I think the}' were certainly recognized as such by the Ord- 
nance Dei)firtment. The act of July 17, 1802, required those accounts to 
go to the Treasury first. That law was amended by the act of March 2, 
18G7. Disbursing officers were by that last act directed to send to tlie 
Bureaus their accounts, and they were first scrutinized there; they 
then went to the Treasury ; and that holds good now. 

Question. You recognize store-keepers in your Dei)artment as dis- 
bursing officers "? 

Answer. Certainly ; their accounts went to the Treasury. 
3 H c 



34 

Qnostioii. About Avliat proportion of tlie animal appropriation for 
the Ordance Department lias been usually disbursed by the ordnance 
s 'ore-keepers'? 

Answer. 1 cannot tell exactly, but 1 should think about one-half ; be- 
cause one of the largest disbursements that are made in the Ordnance 
Department is made by an ofiUcer, that is, at the Rock Island arsenal, 
where we have no store-keeper; and then there area good many pay- 
ments made from the Treasury without placing the money into the 
hands of tlie store-keeper at all. In case of contracts, visually the 
money is paid by the Treasury dii-ect. 

Question. Is not the head of a I) urea u made responsible by law for 
the safe custody and faithful disbursement of funds appropriated for 
his Department 1 

Answer. I can answer for the Oidnancc Department. There is no 
law, that I am aware of, that makes the Chief ot Ordnance responsible. 

Question. Is not the head of the Bureau held personally accountable 
as such by the Treasury Department as a disbursing otticer ? 

Answer. 1 do not so understand it in the case of the Chief of Ord- 
nance. 

The accused then asked and received i)ermission to farther examine 
the witness, as follows : 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Has General Howard been an otticer of ordnance? 

Answer. Yc^s, sir. 

(Question. What is your o[)iiiion of the standing of General Howard 
in that department as to the manner of the [)erlormance of his duties 
there ? 

Answer. ^^Iy knowledge of General Howard as an ordnance officer 
was contined to service at the Military Academy at West Point, imme- 
diately prior to the war. I think I went there in 1851), and General 
Howard later, at the breaking out of the war, in ISGl, probably; per- 
haps we were there a couple of years together. We were not in the 
same department. I knew General Howard very well; saw him nearly 
every day. As to his merits as an ordnance officer, of course I know 
nothing, because he was not on ordnance duty at that time, and I think 
at that time I was not on ordnance duty at the Academy ; but I always 
held him, at that time, in high estimation as a high-minded, honorable. 
Christian gentleman. 

Question. To what ofliicer do disbursing officers in the Ordnance De- 
partment render their accounts "? Is it to the Secretary of the Treasury? 

Answer. They render them direct to the Chief of Ordnance. They are 
scrutinized in the Ordnance Office, and then go to the Treasury Depart- 
ment. 

The testimony of the witness was then read to him, and pronounced by 
him to be correct as recorded. 

Hon. John M. Biiodhead, Second Comptroller, then came into court, 
and was duly sworn according to law, and testified as follows: 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. John M. Brodhead ; Second Comptroller ; residence, 235 New 
Jersey avenue, southeast. 

Question. How long have you been Comptroller of the Treasury "? 

Answer. Taking both terms of service, I have been about fifteen 
years. JVly present term commenced June 1, 1803. 



35 

Question. Do yon know Brigadier-General Howard, here present? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do you know what duty lie was upon between May o, 1SG5, 
and July 1, 1872 ? 

Answer. He was, so far as the Treasury Oflice was concerned, on 
duty in the Freeduien's Bureau as Commissioner. 

Question. Prior to March 29, 1SG7, have you any knowledge or in- 
formation as to how the accounts of the Freedmen's Bureau wereaudited? 

Answer. They were audited in precisely the same way that the ac- 
counts of other disbursing ofticers were audited. When General How- 
ard was first appointed superintendent under the law creating the (Jom- 
missiouer, it was a new i)oint whetlier lie was required to render his ac- 
counts to the Treasury at all. If the court will examine the law, they 
will see there is not one word in regard to it. Some one came to me at 
that time — perlia])S Geueral Howard ; I am not certain, but I think he 
did — and wanted to know where he should render his accounts — where 
the accounts should be rendered. I stated tliat, under the general law 
of March 3, 1817, ie(]uiring all accounts in which the United States 
were interested, either as debtor or creditor, to be stated and adjusted 
in the Treasury Departnient, that if he had any pubHc money that he 
was disbursing, he had to account for it at the Treasury Department; 
and it was fin;".lly settled tliat, for all disbursements he made previous 
to 18G7, they should be statetl in the Third Auditor's office and theu 
sent to mine. 

Question. Has your attention been directed to the act of Congress 
approved March 2*J, 1867, entitled "A resolution in reference to the col- 
lection and payment of moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, and ma- 
rines, or their heirs'?" 

Answer. 1 am familiar with that law, and have reason to be familiar 
with it, if the court would like the history of that. The accounting 
ofticers found that the colored soldiers were being cheated out of pretty 
much the whole of their pay and bounty. 1 consulted with the Second 
Auditor, and several others, and finally the officers that were chiefly in- 
terested had a meeting in regard to it, and this very mode of payment 
was suggested. A bill was drawn n]>, (with which I had considerable 
to do.) much longer than this one of 1867, or rather more guarded, I 
think, than that, the result being this joint resolution of 1867. It origi- 
nated at the suggestion of the Treasury itself. 

Question. What were the rules and regulations governing disburs- 
ing officers of the Army in the disbursement and holding of public mon- 
eys between March 29, 1867, the date of tlie passage of this act, and 
July 1, 1872, the date of the discontinuance of the Freedmen's Bureau? 

Answer. The rules and regulations governing disbursing olficers of 
the Army are, of course, very nuuierous, for their duties are somewhat 
diverse. There are some rules and regulations in the Quartermaster's 
Department that do not obtain in the Ordnance or Commissary ; but 
all those are to be found, pretty much, in the rules and regulations of 
war. Those that are applicable in the Treasury Departrr.ent I have 
brouffht here. They were in force between those dates I have men- 
tioned. 

(iUe witness produces papers. There being no objection on the part 
of the accused they are considered as read, and are attached to the record 
and marked " Q."j 

Question. Wuat are your duties as Second Comptroller with reference 
to the accounting to the Treasury of officials holding public moneys f 

Answer. My duties are to revise the accounts stated of the Second, 



3G 

Thiicl,aii(l Fourth Auditors ; aud if a man is found iu arrears to the United 
States, or has not rendered his account iu conformity with the law and the 
regulations, it is my duty to notify him, or, rather, where there is a sus- 
jjension iu the account, the Auditor uotilies that othcer, and after the ac- 
couut is adjusted, if he is still in arrears, we have a transcript of his ac- 
count prepared for suit, and send it to the Solicitor of the Treasury, 

Question. Upon the passage of a law with reference to the accounting 
by public ofiUcers of public moneys to the Treasury iu which your office 
is concerned, what are your duties with reference to the determination 
of the extent and provisions of that law ? 

Answer. Simply, when any account is reported, of the disbursement 
of public money, it is my duty to see that it is done in conformity with 
the rules and regulations that exist, unless there is something peculiar 
iu the law ; in that case it might be my duty to issue some regulations. 

Question. Who, by law, is charged with the duty of prescribing forms 
of accounts for the disbursement of public money '? 

Answer. The Secretary of the Treasury is generall}" charged with the 
duty of having forms and modes of keeping accounts prescribed to the 
other officers of the Treasury Department, and they, in turn, prescribe 
for the disbursing officers of the other Departments. The duty falls to 
the First or Second Comptroller to prescribe rules and regulations to dis- 
bursing officers, as a general rule. They send out the rules and regula- 
tions that will be in force at the Treasury Department for the account- 
ability of publuj money. 

Question. Were you called upon, m the course of your official duties, 
to determine or decide as to the scope and extent of that act of March 
29, 1867 1 

Answer. Xo, sir. 

Question. Were you called upon to decide under that act as to who 
was to be held accountable or responsible for the safe custody and faith- 
ful disbursement of public funds ap[)ropriated for the Freedmeu's 
Bureau? 

Answer. No, sir; I think the act itself defines that. The second sec- 
tion, I think, makes the Commissioner the custodian — makes him re- 
sponsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement. 

Question. Do you know to whom moneys were paid, under that act, 
from the Treasury ? 

Answer. 1 think, by an arrangement made under the authority of the 
Secretary of War, that General Balloch was authorized to act as dis- 
bursing agent of the Freedmeu's Bureau, and requisitions aud warrants 
were drawn in his favor, and money paid to him. 

Question. When was that arrangement made ? 

Answer. That 1 cannot tell. It was not communicated to me by 
letter, officially, although I got the information ; it was sent down. 
The Secretary of War signing the requisitions was sufficient authority 
to me, because under the law of May 7, 1822, he would be authorized 
to draw re<iuisitions in favor of parties whom he supposed were entitled 
to it. 

Question. Whom did you officially hold responsible for the safe cus- 
tody and faithful disbursement of those funds'^ 

Answer. We settled General Balloch's accounts, and, of course, he 
being recognized as disbursing officer of the War Department, we 
shoula have iield him accountable. 

(Question. In point of fact, did you, as Second Comptroller, hold him 
accountable ? 



37 

Answer. Yes, sir; we o)>ened au account with liiin, aud held biin ac- 
conutable, aud do to this day. 

(Question, lleferriuo- to Exhibit X, on page 36 of Exhibit B, in this 
case, do you know the circumstances under which that statement was 
made by the Second Auditor, which purports to be a decision of yours? 

Answer. I do not recoHect what the circumstances were; but I recol- 
lect perfectly well that they came to see me — somebody from the Second 
Auditor's Office, and that I stated there that under this second section 
of the joint resolution General Howard would seem to have been held 
responsible; but that we had recognized, under authority of the War 
Department, General Ballocli, and had stated an account in his name, 
aud were continually doing it. 1 have no doubt I said substantially 
what is there, because I referred to the second section of the joint reso- 
lution of 1807, which holds the Commissioner responsible. 

Question. Do you know in what quality General Balloch rendered his 
accounts to the Treasury ; whether in his own name or specifically 
stated as for the Commissioner ? 

Answer. I think he rendered them in his own name, although I do 
not now recollect. I think they were rendered in his own name as dis- 
bursing agent of the Freedmen's Bureau. I feel quite certain of it. 

Question. But you are not positive ! 

Answer. I think I am safe in saying that that was so — I mean the 
statement of his account, not as to vouchers. 

Question. The account was opened in his name at the Treasury ? 

Answer. I think so. 

Question. As disbursing agent of the Freedmen's Bureau? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In the payment of vouchers which were rendered with the 
account of General Balloch, do you know whether those vouchers were 
in the name of General Balloch "for the Commissioner of the Freedmeu-s 
Bureau," or solely in General Balloch's name 'I 

Answer. I think 1 have seen vouchers that were taken by General 
Balloch acting for the Commissioner. How they were generally, I don't 
recollect. They were very seldom brought to my notice. 

Question. If, under the law of Congress, a certain duty was put upon 
an officer to disburse public funds and that officer, from the necessities 
of the case, would be unable to make all the payments hiuiself, i^ersou- 
ally, and would have to employ agents to assist him in making those 
payments, who would be held accountable, in your office, if those ac- 
counts were to be rendered there for thedisbursement of those moneys? 

Answer. The party upon whom the law devolved the responsibility, 
as a general thing, would certainly be held responsible ; but if the head 
of the Department from which the disbursements should be made should 
designate a disbursing officer, and the accounts were opened with him, 
it would certainly seem to divide the responsibility, at any rate. 

Question. If the law should si)ecifically make a particular functionarj- 
responsible for the disbursement of public moneys, and he should employ 
agents to assist him in those disbursements, either with or without the 
sanction of the head of the Department, and those accounts should be 
rendered to your office, whom would you hold responsible for the safe 
custody and faithful disbursement of those funds'? 

Answer. If the law made any officer responsible for the custody and 
safe-keeping of money, and he employed a subordinate agent, although 
the accounts might be stated in that agent's name, I should think the 
principal designated by the law would be the one who would be held 
responsible. 



38 

Qaestion. If such a case arose in your office without a decision froui 
a court of competent jurisdiction to guide you in construing the law, 
how would you determine? 

Answer. I think I should hold the j)erson designated in the law as 
the party to be held responsible. 

Question. Have you any warrant or order from the Secretary of the 
Treasury in reference to appropriations made for the Freedmeu's Bu- 
reau ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Is it before you 1 

Answer. No, sir ; I have not got it here. 

Question. Under the third section of the act of March 29, 18G7, whom 
did you construe to be the disbursing officers of the Army — commissioned 
or civiliau employes? 

Answer. I thought it applied to all the disbursing officers of the 
Army. The general rules that are applicable to all disbursing officers 
would apply to the disbursement of this money. Of course, there must 
be some very considerable moditication in that case ; in this very act 
itself there is a very important modification, both of the previous laws, 
aud of the regulations that were framed under those laws. For instance, 
the act of 184G is modified by the act of the 3d of March, 1857. That 
directs that all payments of over $120 shall be made by checks on the 
depository where the officer shall keep his account. This law expressly 
directs that, after payments have been made by the disbursing ofiicer to 
General Howard, as Commissioner, he shall pay the beneficiaries in cur- 
rency. It is a very important modification. General Howard had to 
receive the money from the i)aymaster in currency ; and he had to take 
those amounts and pay them in currency to the beneficiaries. He 
received a check, and drew the money ; and that money he had to pay 
to the beneficiaries in currency as the law prescribes. 

Question. Between those periods, March 29, 18G7, and July 1, 1872, 
with reference to your duties as Second Comptroller, who were disburs- 
ing officers of the Army — were they mixed — such as civilians, enlisted 
soldiers, and commissioned officers, or were they partly civiliau agents 
and partly commissioned officers"^ That is, how did you construe 
those words " disbursing officers of the Army f" 

Answer. I considered the disbursing officers of the Army, the officers 
who were to disburse for Army purposes — paymasters, quartermasters, 
commissaries of subsistence — commissioned officers. 

Question. Was General Balloch an officer of the Army ? 

Answer. I believe he was so when he was transferred to the Bureau. 

By the Accused, through his counsel : 

Question. Has General Howard settled all his disbursing-accounts of 
the Freedman's Bureau with the Treasury of the United States! 

Answer. I believe he has. 

Question. Did the Treasury Department prescribe, under the act of 
May 8, 1792, how the accounts of the Freedmeu's Bureau should be 
kept — under one head or several ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. The Secretary of the Treasury under that act, and 
nuder the general organic act, of 1789, prescribes the form of keeping 
and stating ; and immediately after the passage of any law making an 
appropriation of money, he sends to the various officers what was termed 
an appropriation warrant, freciuently, there would be a dozen items 
that would all be concentrated, put in one. An instance occurs to me 
in the Xavy Department; they made appropriations for construction 



39 

and repairs of vessels ruimiiig over fifteen or sixteen items; it is all put 
under one sin.ule iiead, that is •" equipment and repairs." And so it 
occurs in the War Department; the Secretary, in looking over, to save 
embarrassment and the multiplying of accounts indefinitely, almost, 
condenses a great many of those small appropriations, looking upon 
them somewhat in the light of estimates — condenses them all under one 
head ; and under that head we open the bouks in the Treasury the 
Secretary of the Treasury prescribes. 

By the Court : 

(Question. When and l)y what authority was General Ballocli made 
disbursing officer of the Freedmeu's Bureau, and was he recognized by 
the Treasury Department as disbursing officer of bounty, prize money, 
and other legitimate claims of colored soldiers and sailors, by the act 
of March 29, J 807? 

Answer. He was made disbursing officer of the Freedmeii's Bureau, 
I think immediately after the establishment of the Bureau. I know 
nothing whatever of the authority under which he was appointed, or 
of the negotiations or reasons that induced it. He was appointed by 
the Secretary of War, as I understood, although I had no official 
notification from the Secretary. It was sufficient for me that the Sec- 
retary assigned him as a disbursing officer of his own in the department. 

Question. Was he recognized by the Treasury Department as dis- 
bursing officer of bounty, prize-money, and other legitimate claims of 
colored soldiers and sailors, by the act of March 29, 18(37. 

Answer. Yes, sir. The bounty certificates that were issued under the 
act of 1807 were all drawn as payaljle to General Howard. He was 
made the payee of all of them. As I understand it, the money was 
draAvn out by General Howard, or by General Balloch, acting for Gene- 
ral Howard, and then General Balloch disbursed the money after he had 
received it from the paymasters. 

Question. And was responsible to the Treasury himself? 

Answer. Yes; he rendered an account to the Treasury himself for the 
disbursement of that money in his own name. 

Question. To what extent, if at all, did the action of the Secretary of 
War, appointing or recognizing General Balloch as disbursing officer of 
the Freechnen's Bureau, relieve General Howard from the responsibility 
imposed on him by the act oi March 29, 1807 ? 

The Accused said : If the court please, in connection with this ques- 
tion, I would like the witness to look at this act of March 29, 1807, and 
notice the fact that officers and agents of the Bureau are mentioned 
twice in the act. 

[A copy of the act was here shown to the witness.] 

Answer. The order of any executive officer could not nullify or im- 
pair the obligations imposed by the law itself. The Commissioner would 
be held primardv responsible for the acts of his agents under him. 

Question. In your opinion, under sections 2 and 3 of the act of March 
29, 1807, was the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau required to 
disburse the fnnds under that act the same as other chiefs of Bureau, 
or was he expected to disburse the funds in person ? 

Answer. My understanding of it is, that as the law itself declared it 
to be a Bureau, not an ordinary disl)ursing office, that he would stand 
on the same footing as the other chiefs of Bureau. It would have l)een 
impossible for him to pay these moneys in. person. 

Question. AVere, or not, other chiefs of Bureauscharged bylaw with the 
safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds of their respective 



40 

Bureaus, aud if not, is there, or not, a difference on this account be- 
tween them and the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Answer. There is, certainly, some difference between the Freedmen's 
Bureau and Commissioner— between that and any other Bureau, or 
the head of any other Bureau. It is very rare that tlie head of any 
Bureau has any money drawn in his own name. But this law was made 
for a state of things not likely ever again to exist, and that never ex- 
isted before. The second section seems to hold the Commissioner re- 
sponsible for the custody and safe keeping of public money, but does 
not hold, for instance, the Quartermaster-General responsible lor safe 
keeping of money appropriated for his Department. 

Question. The money does not come to him ? 

Answer. No ; it does not come to him at all. 

Question. Under section 3 of this act of March 29, 1867, was the 
Commissioner authorized and expected to disburse the funds under it 
through proper officers and agents! 

Answer. I have no doubt that lie was expected to, from the impossi- 
bility of doing it personally. 

Question. Have the accounts of General Balloch as disbursing officer 
of the Freedmen's Bureau been finally adjusted at the Treasury ? 

Answer. They were thought to have been finally adjusted, but we 
found that there was a considerable credit given for a duplicate bill, 
and that still remains unadjusted. With that exception, I believe they 
are. 

(The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the court being 
again opened the witness was examined as follows, all being present as 
before.) 

Question. In one of your answers you referred to a divided responsi- 
bility between the Commissioner of the Bureau, &c., and a disbursing 
agent for that Bureau, appointed by authority of the Secretary of War ; 
would, or not, that part of the respousibility attachiug to the Commis- 
sioner be a pecuniary one, or a responsibility of supervision requiring 
of him due dilligence as head of a Bureau of the War Department ? 

Ans^A er. My opinion would be that in such a case as that, although, 
as I said before, the Commissioner is held i)rimarily responsible under 
the law for the safe keeping and custody of ])ul)lic money, that he would 
not be held pecuniarily if he used due diligence in the performance of 
his duties imposed upon him by this second section. 

Question. If the Commissioner was responsible for the safe custody 
and disbursement of public money under the a(;t of March 29, 1807, and 
he had to emi)loy disbursing officers to disburse such money, how, then, 
was he to be protected from loss by the fraud or deceit of such agent ? 

Answer. He could not be protected from loss if he was held responsi- 
ble to return the money, as a matter of course. But, as I said before, I 
do not think General Howard could be held pecuniarily responsible if 
he used due diligence in the discharge of his duties under that second 
section, because it is manifestly impossible, as I said before, that he 
could personally make all those payments ; he had to emi)loy agents, 
and if he used all proj)er ])recaution in the selection of tliose agents, 
and a loss accrued, I don't think he could be held pecuniarily responsi- 
ble. But he would be, under the laws, as I said before, primarily re- 
sponsible. I recollect one instance where a paymaster — Ten Eyck, I 
think, was his name — paid a whole company, it being entirely a forgery 
from beginning to end ; it was very adroitly done. We charged it, of 
course, upon the paymaster at first ; but he was finally held to be irre- 
sponsible, so far as returning the mouey was concerned, and he obtained 
a credit through the executive officer. It has l)eeu done repeatedly 



41 

through decisions of various heads of DepartineDts under Poinsett, John 
Bell, I think, Schofield, and Mr, Floyd when he was acting Secretary. 
At any rate, there have been several recent examples of that same kind. 
There was no express law in regard to it. 

Question. What that meant was, merely that it was not worth while 
to jirosecnte ? 

Answer. No, sir. It was a direct allowance made under authority of 
the Department and by virtue of the signature from tlie head of the 
]3epartmeut. 

Question. How did you officially construe the words '•'• officers or agents 
acting nnder him," mentioned in the act ? -Did you consider these dis- 
bursing officers and agents as administrative or executive functionaries, 
and as pecuniarily responsible to the Government or to the Commis- 
sioner ? 

Answer. They were not recognized at the Treasury in any capacity. 
They were merely agents of the Commissioner, except General Balloch 
and Major Brown, who were appointed by the Secretary of War. 

Question. Were the disbnrsing and other agents referred to in the 
act appointed by the Commissioner ; or, if not, by whom '? 

Answer. They were appointed, as 1 understand it, by the Commis- 
sioner, with the exceptions I have named — General Balloch and Major 
Brown. 

[Examination closed.] 

At 2,30 p. m. tlie court adjourned until to-morrow, Thursdav, March 
19, 1874, at 11 o'clock p. m. ' 



EIGHTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, 
No. 181G F STREET, Washington, D. C, 

March 19, 1871 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met i)nrsuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present : 

1. Gen. William T. Sherman, IT. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster General, JJ. S. A. ; 
1. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

o. Col. George W. Gettvi Third Artillerv; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalrv ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A. ; 

Also Brig. Gen, O, O, Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Edgar 

Ketchum, esq., and George W. Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The judge-advocate then read the minutes of the i)roceediugs of 

yesterday. 

At the conclusion of the reading of the minutes, 

Hon. John M. Brodhead, the witness last examined, said : 

I wonld like to correct my testimony of yesterday in reference to Mr. 



42 

Ten Eyck ; because, after looking- at the records in the Second Auditor's 
Office, I cannot liud it. While I am yet of tiie same impression, it is 
only a matter of recollection with me, as I do not find it of record. 

The minutes were then approved. 

By permission of the court, the Hon. John M. Bkodhead was then 
further examined, as follows : 

By the JuDaE-ADVOCATE : 

(Question. You stated yesterday in your testimony, in answer to ques- 
tions by the court, that requisitions from the Secretary of War upon the 
Secretary of the Treasury with reference to approi)riations for the 
Freedmeu's Bureau were drawn in the name of General Balloch, and 
that throngh that fact, in addition to unofficial information you collected, 
he was appointed disbursing officer of the War Department. Please 
state whether or not, in your recollection, any requisitions went in to 
the Secretary of the Treasury from the Secretary of War between March 
29, 18ij7, and July 1, 1872, in which the name of any disbursing officer 
under General Howard appeared with reference to moneys approi)riated 
to be disbursed under that act of March L'9, 18G7 ? 

Answer. There would necessarily in that case be no requisition issued 
for the money. The requisition that would issue for the money out of 
which these wards, if one may call them so, of the United States, these 
negro soldiers and sailors, were paid, the money was drawn out on 
requisitions in favor of the disbursing officer who paid the Freedmen's 
Bureau, paid General Howard. 

Question. Of the Pay Department? 

Answer. The disbursing officer of the Pay Department. 

Question. Do I or not understand you with reference to the act of 
March 29, 18G7, that there were no recjuisitions from the Secretary of 
War to the Secretary of the Treasury which recognized General Balloch 
or Major Brown or any other person under General Howard as the 
disbursing officer ! 

Answer, That was so, I believe. I wish to explain one portion of my 
testimony. I said that none of the agents who are mentioned in the 
law of 18G7 were recognized at the Treasury. I meant the agents who 
were appointed by General How^ard. I knew that officers of the Army 
were detailed, and I found that they rendered accounts of property, &c. 
They were submitted, in the first place, to General Howard. Quarter- 
masters submitted their accounts to the (Quartermaster General, and 
after being ai>proved by him they were sent over to the Treasury. 

Question. You speak of civil agents rather than military ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you mean property and money ? 

Answer. I believe it is for both ; but I know they did for property. 
I had that specially upon my mind. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Did General Howard's name appear in any warrant of the 
Secretary of War upon the Treasury for the direct payment of bounties ? 

Answer. ]S"o, sir; it did not. All the warrants for the payment of 
bounties were drawn in favor of disbursing officers of the Pay Depart- 
ment of the Army ; but the Second Auditor and myself settled the 
accounts of these colored soldiers, made each certificate payable to 
General Howard, and General Howard drew the money from the Pay- 
master, either by check or some other way. 

[Examination closed.] 



43 

Hon. Ezra B. French was tbeu called before the court, aiul liaving- 
been duly sworu in the presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, official position, and residence. 

Answer. Ezra B. French, Second Auditor of the Treasury, residing" 
in Washington. 

Question. Do you know Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard ? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do you know what duties he was upon, with reference to 
any accountability to your office, between May 5, 18G5, and July 1, 
1872 ? 

Answer. I think that his accountability to my ofitice commenced after 
the passage of the resolutions of March 21), 18G7. I have no recollection 
at this moment of anything prior to that time, except as an ohicer of 
the Army. 

Question. After March 29, 18G7, in what capacity was there an ac- 
countability to your office, if any, on his part ? 

Answer. The only accounts which were rendered by him I think were 
from October 11, 1871, to February 5, 1872. 

Question. In what capacity ? 

Answer. As disbursing officer of the Freedmeu's Bureau. 

Question. After the passage of the resolution of Congress of March 
29, 1867, in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due 
colored soldiers, and so forth, who was held accountable in your office 
for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds payable 
under that act? 

Answer. Generally under the provisions of that resolution General 
Howard was by law made responsible for the safe-keeping and proper 
disbursement of money, as Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau. 

Question. Previous to March 29, 1867, how were those accounts gen- 
erally paid ? 

Answer. Paid by certificate through the Paymaster-General, the 
certificate being sent to the attorneys of the colored claimants. 

Question. From your office? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(Question. After March 29, 1867, how were those accounts settled? 

Answer. They were settled in my office in favor of Gen. O. O. How- 
ard, Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, for the party to whom 
the indebtedness existed. The certificate was sent to him. 

Question. Have you any knowledge or information as to how this 
change was inaugurated ? 

Answer. In relation to this law ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It was induced by thecomplaints that were made of the frauds 
that were being practiced upon colored claimants. I became satisfied, as 
did the Comptroller, that they were being serionsly defrauded, and we had 
information that parties were purchasing those claims for a song, with a 
view to defraud them, and there was no provision of the law by which 
the Treasury Department could reach them and protect them. It was 
thought advisable to do it through the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau, who had his agents all through the States where these parties re- 
sided. A plan, after consultation with General Howard, the Second Comp- 
troller, and myself, and some other gentlemen, was gotten up, and resolu- 



44 

tionswere prepared that were, in some respects, different from the resolu- 
tions which nltimately passed Congress, making tlie Freedmen's Bureau 
the channel through which the Treasury Dei)artment would be able to reach 
these claimants, and protect them in theirrights. The resolutions of March 
29 were in some respects the resolutions that were prepared and were 
agreed upon by the accounting officers of the Treasury and General 
Howard, but they were modified in committee after they had reached 
Congress, and made to say things that were not intended to be said. In 
one respect the resolution as passed opened the door to the perpetration 
of frauds npon colored men, which we had determined should not be 
opened. That was the provision in relation to the payment of advances 
claimed by attorneys or other parties to have been made to the colored 
men. 

Question. In what respect, then, is the resolution of March 29, 18G7, 
as adopted, different from the resolution agreed npon by General How- 
ard, the Second Comptroller, and yourself, and submitted in Congress? 

Answer. In the second section the words: "'And if any attorney or 
agent shall, in addition to notarial seals and expenses of collecting such 
claim, demand repayment for money loaned or advanced to any claimant, 
he shall be required to make oath to the date and amount of said loan 
or advance, or payment of the fees and expenses shall be withheld." 
That provision was interjected into the second section, in that way au- 
thorizing indirectly the making of advances, and directing the Commis- 
sioner to recognize such claims for advances and the payment of them, 
which we tried to avoid. Section third was also added to the resolves, 
I find. In other respects the resolves are as they were drawn, as nearly 
as I can determine the fact. 

Question. Before the passage of that resolution of March 29, 1807, to 
whom were claims for bounties, and so forth, directly made ? 

Answer. Directly made to my office as Second Auditor of the Treas- 
ury. 

Question. Subsequent to the passage of that act "I 

Answer. Made in the same way. The claims were made to my office, 
prosecuted there, and when the accounting officers were satisfied that 
the proper claimant had applied, and we had ascertained the amount of 
indebtedness, then the certificate was issued, as I said before, payable 
to General Howard, for the parties to be ascertained and identified. 

Question. Then, from March 29, 1867, to July 1, 1872, whom did you 
hold accountable for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of those 
funds ? 

Answer. The law appeared to hold General Howard responsible for 
the safe custody. We had no occasion whatever to call upon General 
Howard until, in the settlement of theaccount, the Comptroller directed 
that the settlement should be made in the name of General Howard. 
Before that time we had received the accounts of General Balloch, who 
signed himself " Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer 
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands." Those 
accounts came in, and were examined in my office. 

Question. Do you know whether lie signed them in his own name, or 
as agent, or for any other party ? 

Answer. His accounts were made as I have stated, and signed ns I 
have stated, and those accounts were approved by General Howard, as 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, before being sent to my office 
for adjustment. 

Question. Please look at this document, and state whether you have 
ever seen it before. 



45 

[Paper sbown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, I have seen it. Tliat is ray signature to the certificate 
from the records of the office. 

Question. Have you any Ivuowledge whose signature that is! 

[Signature shown witness.] 

Answer. I have reason to suppose it is General Balloch's. Although 
I have seen his name frequently attached to papers which came in with 
his accounts, I don't know that I have ever seen him write his name. 

[The signature of Mr. Balloch is admitted by the accused, to be 
genuine.] 

Question. What is placed under the signature of General Balloch on 
that original document! 

Answer. His title, "Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing 
Officer for Major-General O. O. Howard, Commissioner" — printed. 

Question. Do you know Avhether there are other accounts of this gen- 
eral nature in your office! 

Answer. I do not. I am not familiar with these vouchers, as the^' 
came in in the accounts of General Balloch. They did not come under 
my personal supervision. His general account 1 saw; his vouchers are 
examined by the clerk, not presented to me at all, unless there is some 
particular question that arises. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I will offer a copy of this in evidence. It 
is under the seal of the Treasury Department, and is an account and 
receipt for bounty. 

[A copy is attached to the record, and marked Exhibit R] 

Question. Do you know whether or not General Howard was at the 
time mentioned in the receipt to that document an officer of the Army! 

Answer. 1 suppose he was. 

Question. Does anything in the records of your office show whether 
General Balloch was an officer of the Army continuously in service from 
March 29, 1807, to July 1, 1872! 

Answer. There is nothing that I recall, unless it may be the General 
Orders of the War Department. 

Question. Have you an3' record of that in your office! 

Answer. iSTo record. It is not the place for such a record. 

Question. Might he. or not, have continued to act as disbursing officer 
or agent of the Freedmen's Bureau from March 29, 18G7, to July 1, 1872, 
and meanwhile have been mustered out of the Army, without your 
knowing it! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question, What proportion of claims of colored soldiers, in j'our judg- 
ment, had been lost by the claimants immediately before the act of March 
29, 1807 ! 

Answer, It would be impossible for me to say ; my attention has not been 
called to it, but 1 know that the comphiints were constant by the parties- 
The Pa;v master-General paid largely ; up to 1800 the Paymaster-Gen- 
eral made payments direct to the discharged soldiers. After the 
passage of the bounty-act of July 28, 1800, the Paymaster-General came 
to me and said, that it was impossible for him to discharge the duties 
required of him by the Secretary of War, in the payment of that bounty 
to discharged soldiers and to colored men at the same time, and desired, 
me as Second Auditor to assume that class of cases at that time — col- 
orei! clainiant.s. 



46 

Question. Can you say distinctly that after the passage of that act of 
March 29, 1807, there was a marked reform in that respect? 

Answer. Yes, I know that I was as earnestly abased by speculators and 
claim-agents for the agency which I had in procuring the passage of that 
law as a public ofiicer need to be. 

Question. Did not General Howard stop the system of advances, on 
bounty claims by orders'? 

Answer. I am not prepared now to answer that question. I could not 
recollect whether it was so or not. I know that General Howard concurred 
with me, tliat it was a most dangerous thing to allow — an improper 
thing to be done, to allow attorneys to come in and make claims for ad- 
vances, because a man that intended to swindle a negro would swear to a 
lie. You might assunu^ that as a general principle. 

Question. Did he not have a consultation with yourself in respect to 
the issuing of such orders by him ? 

Answer. I think he did. 

(Question. Who was General Howard's successor under the act of 
March 29, 1807 ? 

Answer. The Secreta.-y of War. 

Redirect examination. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Keferring to the act approved June 10, 1872, discontinuing 
the Freedmen's liureau, and transferring it to the War Di^partment, the 
provisions of former acts to be carried into eftect by the Secretary of 
\Var, whom did you olTticially consider pecuniarily accountable for the 
safe custody and faithful disl)ursement of the funds transferred under 
that act ? 

Answer. The office had no occasion to act in this any more than in 
the case of the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau at the inception 
of payment by the Freedmen's Bureau; but the impression which 1 had 
received from that act, transferring the duties and responsibilities of the 
Freedmen's Bureau to the Secretary of War, it carried with it to the 
Secretary the same duties and responsibilities that were imposed by 
the resolution of March 29, 1807, upon the Commissioner of the Freed- 
nien's Bureau. It has this advantage, that it authorizes specifically the 
Secretary of War to give such directions and such orders as he sees fit 
in relation to the proper disbursement, care, safe-keeping, identifica- 
tion, &c. 

By the Court: 

Question. Was or not the facility of paying bounties, through the 
machinery of the Freedmen's Bureau, the basis of a plan for changing 
the mode hitherto practised of paying such bounties to colored soldiers 
and sailors, and was there any idea or purpose in the mind of any of the 
Treasury officials concerned in proiiosing the plan, or of General How- 
ard, that General Howard should be held pecuniarily responsible for the 
loss of money on the part of agents nuiking direct i)ayments ? 

Answer. No more than the head of any other Bureau who had charge 
of or general direction of disbursements. In relation to the first part 
of the question, I would answer that it was the object of the Treasury 
officials, by transferring the i)ayments through the Freeduien's Bureau, 
to better reach and secure payiuent to the clainuints than could possi- 
bly be done under any other system we could think of, and at the 
same time i)rotect the officers of my own office and the clerks in the 



47 

Second Auditor's Department from improper influenees, and cliarges 
that might be made of frauds practiced by them. The object was to 
take away inducements to fraud from the Second Auditor's Office. 
That is what 1 had in view at the time. 

Question. Have simihir complaints been made that white sohliers did 
not receive their bounty ? 

Answer. A great many. I think I may safely say that more than one 
hundred claim-agents, against whom such charges were made, have been 
suspended by me from transacting business with the office, in conse- 
quence of complaints of that character. 

Question. Has General Howard settled his own disbursing accounts 
with your ofiflce '? 

Answer. He has. 

Question. As your certificate of February 24, 1S71, in the case of 
Sergeant Brown, (Exhibit R,) made the amount of liis claim specifically 
l)ayable to Brigadier-General Howard, or his order, for such soldier, and 
it was approved by the Second Comptroller, do you know how it has 
come about that General Balloch receipts to the Paymaster for this 
sum '? 

Answer. I only know that he was recognized as chief disbursing offi- 
cer for the Freedmen's Bureau, and as such presented his account, and 
as such received the money from the Paymaster, and accounted to the 
Treasury Department. 

Question. 1 find General Ballouh receipts tor a paper which is made 
payable to General Howard, or his order, which is the ordinary form of 
drawing checks. I wanted to find out how it hai)pened that Balloch was 
able to ilraw money which was payable only on General Howard's order. 
Is there a power of attorney to sign receipts for General Howard ? I do 
not find General Howard's order liere. 

Tlie Accused said: I can exi)lain that, I thiidc. When I began to 
sign receii)ts, at tlie beginning, I had only one arm, and this, in 
addition to other duties, caused my left arm to become so swollen 
that I could not write. I apidied to the Secretary of the Treasury, and 
to Dr. Brodhead, and all, and they issued direct and specific orders for 
General Balloch to do that thing. 

Tbe Witness then answered as follows: It was understood by me to 
be under the general authority given to him as disbursing officer of 
General Howard. The omission of the indorsement I know nothing 
about; that was an arrangement between the (comptroller and himself. 
I would say, by way of explanation, however, that we have no different 
certificate to use in this case — in tlie case of the colored soldiers from 
those that were used in the case of white soldiers where we made the 
payment direct to the soldier or his order. It was supposed to be 
sufiticient, and adopted without getting other certificates printed. 

Question. ^Yas there any power of attorrjey or authorization filed 
with you from General Howard to authorize General Balloch to receipt 
there tor ? 

Answer. No; there was no occasion that there should be. 

Question. Then it would seem as if many hundreds of thousands of 
dollars payable to one individual were paid to an individual who had 
no power of attorney. 

Answer. I could not answer. The Comptroller was the only one 
■who was spoken to in relation to the matter. It is very often the case 
that arrangements are made l)y the Comptroller, of which we have a 
sort of official notice that is iniormal, and the action of the office 
conforms to that. 



48 

The accused here presents a copy of a communication by himself to 
the Second Comptroller, of date December 2, 1807, in this matter, and 
the reply of the Second Comptroller, of date December 3, 1867. 

Admitted and read, and marked Exhibit S, with the understanding 
that the Second Comptroller will authenticate subsequently his own 
action contained in this document. 

The further examination of the witness was then postponed until 
to-morrow, Friday, March 20, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m. 

Allen Eutherford, Esq., was then called before the court, and 
having been duly sworn, in the presence of the accused, testifies as fol- 
lows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, official position, and residence. 

Answer. Allen Rutherford ; Third Auditor, United States Treasury : 
Washington, District of Columbia. 

Question. Do you know Brigadier General Howard, here present? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do you know George W. Balloch, of this city 1 

Answer. I do. 

Question. In what capacity, if any, was General Howard recognized 
in the Third Auditor's Office from May 5, 1805, to July 1, 1872 t 

Answer. General Howard never rendered any accounts to the Third 
Auditor's Office until October 10, 1871 ; he rendered accounts then as 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Ereedmeu, liefugees and Abandoned 
Lands. 

Question. Between March 29, 1807, and July 1, 1872, what were the 
rules and regulations governing disbursing officers of the Army, with 
reference to your office I 

Answer. 1 don't know as I exactly" comprehend the question. Dis- 
bursing officers of the Army, or any disbursing officers whose returns 
properly come to the Third Auditor's OfUce, are charged with all moneys 
or property which njay come into their possession; moneys sent to them 
from the Treasury on requisition of the Secretary of War or Secretary 
of the Interior, or moneys received by them from other officers, or from 
any source, and are held accountable for the proper distribution, if I 
may use the word, of these funds or property. 

Question. What Avere the rules and regulations of your office on the 
subject of the Freedmen's Bureau generally, immediately prior to March 
29, 1807, and from that time down to July 1, 1872 ? 

Answer. I made a memorandum of the way in which the Third 
Auditor's Office assumed jurisdiction over the accounts. 

Question. Please give it in your own language. 

Answer. By the act of JMarch 3, 1817, which created the office of 
Third xVuditor — previous to which time that office was the office of the 
accountant of war — under the second section of that act, it says that, 
from and after date, " all claims and accounts whatsoev^er shall be set- 
tled and adjusted in the Treasury Department." All the accounts of 
the Bureau of Pefugees, Freedmen aiul Abandoned Lands were sent 
to the office of the Third Auditor. When the chief disbursing officer 
of the Bureau began payment of bounties to colored soldiers under the 
provisions of that law, the bounty accounts were separated and referred 
to the Second Auditor for settlement. This was in April, 1870. All 
the other accounts, as property or for the support of the Bureau, were 



49 

acted upon in the office of the Third Auditor. The reason that we 
separated the bounty matters and sent them to the Second Auditor was 
that the Second Auditor settled, under existing laws, questions relating 
to the pay and bounty of the Army. Prior to the passage of the act 
creating the Bureau, the management of abandoned lands and subjects 
relating to refugees and freedmeu were, by military orders and existing 
laws, partly in the hands of military officers and partly in charge of 
Treasury agents, and large sums of money were in the hands of dis- 
bursing officers, quartermasters, and commissaries, derived from tax on 
colored laborers, employes, hospital-tax, and various matters of that 
kind. To remedy this condition of aifairs and to supply funds to the 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freeduien and Abandoned Lauds, (no appropria- 
tion having been made for its support at the session of Congress passing- 
the act creating the Bureau,) Andrew Johnson, President, on the 2d of 
June, 1865, issued a proclamation in which it was — 

Ordered, That all officers of the Treasury Department, all military officers, ami all 
others in the service of the United States, turn over to the authorized officers of said 
Bureau all abandoned lands and property contemplated in said act of Congress, ap- 
proved Mai'ch 3, 1865, establishing the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands, that may now be under or within their control. They will also turn over to 
such officers all funds collected by tax or otherwise for the benefit of refugees or freed- 
meu, or accruing from abandoned lands or property set apart for their use, and Will 
transfer to them all official records connected with the adiiunistration of affairs which 
pertain to said Bureau. 

Those are the words froai the proclamation. Oil Jane 15, ISGfJ, an 
act was passed by Cougress, requiring that officers who had funds in 
their hands, received for the support of refugees and freedmeu, should 
be held accountable for the same in like manner as if such moneys 
had been drawn from the Treasury. Section 2 of the act provides that, 
where accounts are rendered for expenditures for refugees and freedmeu 
under the approval and sanction of the proper officers, and which shall 
have been proper and necessary, but cannot be settled for want of spe- 
cific appropriations, that the same may be paid out of tlie funds for the 
relief of freedmeu and refugees, on the approval of the Commissioner of 
the Bureau. 

On July 13, 1866, Congress passed the first regular appropriation for 
the support of the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, 
(which appropriation aggregated $6,944,450.) On examination of the 
books of my office, it was ascertained from those books that there were 
eight hundred and sixty officers doing duty at various times under the 
orders of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lauds: of this number six hundred and forty-three rendered 
property-accounts only, and two hundred and fifteen rendered both money 
and property accouuts. All the property accounts have been examined 
and found correct, and (ilosed, with a few exceptions. The two hundred 
and fifteen officers rendering money-accounts, disbursed the sum of 
$11,181,738.04, as appears from accounts and vouchers received* and 
audited in the Third Auditor's Office, Of this amount, the sum of 
$10,995,431.20 has been passed to the credit of disbursing officers upon 
vouchers audited by the Third Auditor, and approved by the Second 
Comptroller ; the accounts of one hundred and eighty-two of the above 
disbursing officers have been closed upon the books of the Third Auditor's 
Office; while thirty-three officers are still held for balances, amounting 
in the aggregate to $280,306.84. Of this amount $65,796.46 is for bal- 
ances remaining on hand per last accounts received, that is, the officers' 
own acknowledgments of balances, and $220,510.38 for amounts dis- 
4 H c 



50 

allowed by informalities in voucbers, and so forth, tbe most of wbich 
latter amount can be passed to the officers' credit upon receipt of expla 
nations on tbe vouchers. 

Question. After the i)assage of the act of IMarcli 29, 1867, wbicb was 
a resolution in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due 
colored soldiers, what bad your office to do with reference to tbe 
accounts f 

Answer. We bad nothing to do witb ])ounties. 

Question. Under that act ? 

Answer. No, sir. Of course we beld every officer of tbe Freedmen's 
Bureau responsible for tbe moneys or property which was in bis bands, 
but we bad nothing to do with t\iQ payment of hounties. 

Cross-examination. 

By tbe Accused, (tbrougb bis counsel :) 

[Letter shown witness by tbe accused.] 

Tbe Witness says : That is my letter. 

Letter read, attached to the record, and marked Exhibit T. 

Tbe Witness said : In this connection, I would say that tbe total dis- 
bursements made by General Howard were 873,351.10. 

Question. After tbe 29tb of March, 1867, in wbose favor were the 
warrants of tbe Secretary of War upon the Treasury drawn ? 

Answer. To the best of my recollection they were all drawn in favor 
of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Ballocb, cbief disbursing officer of tbe 
Bureau. 

Question. Can you give tbe dates and amounts of those .after tbat 
time, March 29, 1867 ! 

Answer. I bave a memoranda wbicb I made hastily this morning. I 
referred only to the commencement of tbe Bureau. My remembrance 
is they were subsequent to tbis date. Tbe different Secretaries of War, 
including tbe present Secretary, drew their requisitions in tbe same 
manner that these were. T find, tbis morning, requisition No. 1637, 
dated January 7, 1867, for $500,000 ; requisition 2488, dated April 1, 
1867, for $15,000; requisition No. 2696, dated April 9, 1867, for $500,000; 
requisition No. 2888, dated April 15, 1867, for $10,000; requisition No. 
2889, dated April 15, 1867, for $500,000 ; requisition No. 3142, dated 
May 1, 1807, for $15,000. 

The money, in all these cases, was directed to be placed to tbe credit 
of Bvt. Brig'. Gen. George W. Ballocb, who was beld responsible for its 
disbursement by direction of tbe Secretary of War. 

Question. You say the others followed like tbem '^ 

Answer. That is my iuipressiou. 

Redirect exam i nation. 

By tbe Judge-Advocate : 

Question. [Exhibit T sbown witness.] The accounts of General How- 
ard, wbicb were settled and closed in your office, were they accounts 
pertaining to disbursements under the act of Marcb 29, 1867"? 

Answer. They bad nothing to do witb bounties at all ; it was for 
moneys in bis bands for support of tbe Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu 
and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Do you know what tbe status of General Ballocb was witb 
reference to tbe Army on Marcb 29, 1867 ! 



51 

Answer. I know by common report he was commissary of subsistence 
assigned to duty with General Howard. 

Question. Do you know how long he continued to be an officer of the 
Army "? 

Answer. I don't remember the date when he was mustered out. My 
impression is it was some time in 1872. There were numerous officers re- 
tained — officers assigned to duty by General Howard from the volun- 
teer service, and some from the regular service, who were assigned by 
General Howard to various duties. 

Question. Do you know whether he was retained all that time as a 
commissioned officer of the Arm^^ or not ? 

Answer. I could not say. 

Question. Do you know^ whether any requisitions were ever drawn by 
the Secretary of War upon the Secretary of the Treasury in the name 
of General Balloch, after General Balloch had ceased to be a commis- 
sioned officer of the Army ? 

Objected to by the accused for the reason that the witness has already 
stated that he did not know when General Balloch ceased to be a com- 
missioned officer. 

The judge-advocate said : If the court please, the witness says Gen- 
eral Balloch was mustered out, but he does not know when. It has 
been testified that the Secretary of War, beginning in 1807, before the 
passage of the act of March L'9, and subsequently, issued requisitions 
to the Secretary of the Treasury in the name of General Balloch for 
moneys to be paid to him as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau, As 
that stands of record it would convey the impression that the Secretary 
of War had continued to issue requisitions in that form all the way 
down to the discontinuance of the Freedmen's Bureau, thus admitting 
the fact that General Balloch was the chief disbursing officer of the 
Bureau. I do not know whether such was the case or not, and I wish 
to ascertain, if possible, from the witness, how long he continued to 
issue such requisitions. If General Balloch was nuistered out of the 
service as a commissioned oilicer within a few months after the passage 
of the act of March 29, 1867, 1 want to ascertain whether the Secretary 
of War continued to recognize him by these requisitions as disbursing 
officer or not — get it as positively as the witness can determine. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the court being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced that the question was allowed. 

The witness then answered : I do not. I have not examined. 

The testimony of the witness was then read to him, and pronounced 
by him to be correct as recorded. 

So much of the record of the proceedings of yesterday as had not 
been read was then read by the judge-advocate and approved. 

A member of the court suggested that, in view of the amount of tes- 
timony that it was necessary to take, the judge-advocate be authorized 
to obtain the services of two civilian clerks to assist the stenographer in 
writing up the minutes of the proceedings. 

It was moved that the judge-advocate be so authorized. 

The president of the court put the question, and it was determined in 
the affirmative. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation, and upon the doors being 
opened, adjourned at 3 o'clock p. m., to meet again to-morrow, Friday, 
March 20, 1871, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



52 



^"INTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 
Washinciton, D. C, March 20, 1874—11 o'clock a. ra. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. Geueral Wm. T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster- General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Geo. W. Getty, Third Artillery ; 
C. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalry ; 
7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A,, the accused, and Edgar Ketchum 
and George W. Dyer, esqs., of counsel. 

The testimony of Hon. Ezra B. French was read to him and pro- 
nounced by him to be correct as recorded. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday, haviug been read, were 
approved. 

With the permission of the court, Hon. Ezra B. French was re- 
called and examined as follows : 

By the JuDaE- Advocate : 

Question. Referring to Exhibit B, please look at letter i^, on pag-e 36 
of that exhibit, and also letter F, on page 58 of the same exhibit, and 
say whether you have ever seen them before. 

Answer. I have no doubt that the first letter, which appears to have 
my signature, of December 24, 1872, came under my eye. The letter 
of February 1, 1873, on page 58, I think is merely an official statement 
which does not bear my signature, as it appears to be by " J. M. S.," 
Mr. Sims, who was the chief clerk of the division haviug the settle- 
ment of the matter in charge. I have no doubt that the letter gives a 
correct statement of the balance that appeared to be due on the settle- 
ment of the account as it was settled under the direction of the Comp- 
troller ; it embraced the accounts of the disbursing officers. 

Question. It seems to have been reported to the Second Comptroller 
for his decision. Had it come back ? 

Answer. It had not come back at that time. It w as not returned until 
withui the last two months ; certainly not until some time this winter. 
I was requested by General Howard to furnish him a statement as to 
the condition of bis own account as disbursing officer, and which re- 
lated to disbursements made by him from the 11th of October, 1871, 
to February 5, 1872. That account was settled, and I so informed him ; 
and as rendered, with the exception of a clerical error of $32.54, was 
found to be correct. That amount he paid. The certificate that it had 
been turned over was furnished, and his account was reported by my 
Office to the Second Comptroller as without suspension — perfectly set- 
tled. The letter which has been handed to me refers to that fact. 

Question. It was subsequent to the communication from your office of 
February 1st? 

Answer. Yes ; the communication of February 1, 1873, referred to 



53 

the settlement of the general account, as is stated in the first, that the 
Comptroller had directed that General Howard shonld he held acconnt- 
able for moneys disbnrsed by General Balloch ; conseqnently these let- 
ters related to General Howard's account, including the account of Gen- 
eral Balloch. The letter on page 58 relates to the balance found to be 
due. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is or not the balance stated in the letter of February 1, 
1873, still due by General Howard on his account, including the dis- 
bursements made by General Balloch ? 

Answer. I think it is. I huAC no means at this moment of saying. I 
have an impression that there was some error discovered that would re- 
duce that amount. I am not i^repared now to say. I don't like to say 
unless I have the minutes before me. 

The testimony of the witness was then read to him, and pronounced 
by him to be correct as recorded, 

Hon. Robert AV. Tayler then came before the court, and, having 
been duly sworn in the presence of the accused, was examined as fol- 
lows: 

Direct examination. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. Robert W. Tayler, First Comptroller of the Treasury, tem- 
porarily^ residing in Wasbington. 

Question. Please state what are your general duties as an officer of 
the Treasury ? 

Answer. The supervision of accounts — generally civil accounts; all 
the civil accounts except customs. 

Question. Are you familiar with section 14 of the act of August 4, 
1854, chapter 242 > 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether there has been any judicial interpre- 
tation of that? 

Answer. I don't know that there is. 

Question. Have you ever had occasion to give a construction to that 
act in the regular course of your official duty ? 

Answer. I have had several cases, one of which was that of Mr, James 
Eveleth, in the Engineer Department. 

Question. Please state the circumstances under which the case of Mr. 
Eveleth came before you. 

Answer, There was a requisition from the Secretary of War to pay 
some money in his hands for repairing Winder's Building, I think. 

Question. In what capacity was Eveleth employed ? 

Answer. As a clerk in the War Department, and, I think, superin- 
tendent of that building. 

Question. What was the decision that you rendered on that subject? 

Answer, It was, that he could not have the money, and that he was 
not a regularly appointed disbursing officer — had not given bonds, and 
I thought, under the act of 1854, he could not be designated. There 
was another act which authorized the appointment of a disbursing offi- 
cer in the War Department, and prescribed the number of disbursing 
officers that might be in the several Departments ; for that reason I held 
that the act there which is quoted did not refer to his case. 



54 

Qaestiou. Did you issue any rules and regulations with reference to 
the government of disbursing officers under that act ? 

Answer. I don't Ivuow that there ever were any issued. 

Question. Did the President, or any authority superior to yourself, 
promulgate any rules or regulations governing disbursing officers ? 

Answer. The President has. I have an order issued by President 
Grant ; other Presidents have issued similar orders. They are all of 
similar purport. [The witness produces papers.] 

Question. Are you familiar with that signature ? [Paper shown wit- 
ness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it is the President's signature. 

(Question. This document appears to have been addressed to you ; is 
it from the records of your office ? 

Answer. I brought it here from my office. 

[Paper read and copy attached to the record marked Exhibit U, there 
being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who are understood to be disbursing officers in the civil 
service of the Government with reference to this communication ? 

Answer. All officers that disburse funds in the civil service. 

Question. Persons who are in the employ, as agents or otherwise, of 
the Corps of Engineers, or Subsistence Dei)artment, or Bureau of 
Eefugees, Freed men and Abandoned Lands, or Pay Department, how 
are they classed ? 

Answer. They are Army officers, not civil officers. 

Question. In Mr. p]veleth's case, is he classed as a disbursing officer 
of the civil department or of the Army ? 

Answer. He is not a disbursing officer in the civil department, to 
my knowledge ; there is no bond on file in my office. 

Question. Do you know whether since 1867 there have been any 
agents specially designated under that act of 1851, who disbursed 
moneys for the War Department ? 

Answer. I don't know that there have been any. 

Question. What is the status of the chief clerk ? 

Answer. The chief clerk is a civil officer. 

Question. Is he a disbursing officer ? 

Answer, ^o, sir ; he is not. 

Question. In the case of Mr. Eveleth, were you called u]»on to espe- 
cially construe that act of 1851 ? 

Answer. I was. 

Question. What is the document you hold iu your hand ? 

Answer. This purports to be a copy of a letter addressed by me to 
the Secretary of the Treasury ; I suppose it is a copy; it reads like it. 

[Read in evidence and attached to the record, marked Exhibit V, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Cross-examination. 
By the Accused, through his counsel : 

Questi<m. Does the settlement of accounts of military officers come 
before you at all ? 

Answer, Xo, sir ; not the military accounts ; none excei)t General 
Babcock's accounts for expen<litures on the streets and buildings. 

By the Court: 
Question. Where any one loses, or cannot account, according to the 
rules of the Treasury, for public money for which he is responsible, in 
what way, if at all, can he lawfully obtain relief from that responsibility 'l 



55: 

Auswer. By act of Congress ouly. There are some special pro- 
visions about loss of vouchers occurring in the Army where an ofihcer 
may go to the Court of Claims and have the vouchers allowed upon 
making proper proof. I cannot give the details of it ; it was an act 
passed three or four years ago. 

Question. What clerks of the War Department are or have been dis- 
bursing officers of public money ? 

Auswer. Mr. Potts was chief clerk and disbursing officer at the same 
time. I don't know whether he resigned, but my impression is that he 
resigned that part of the duty, and Mr. Eoche was appointed. Mr. 
Eoclie had been his clerk. In the auswer to the question as to what 
cacounts were settled in the First Comptroller's Office, I said all civil 
accounts except customs. I would like to add to it " and accounts con- 
cerning captured and abandoned property." 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him, and pro- 
nounced by him to be correct as recorded. 

Mr. Edwakd R. True was then called before the court, and having 
been duly sworn in the presence of the accused, was examined as fol- 
lows. 

Direct examination. 

By the Judcie-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. Edward R. True ; residence in Maine ; temporarily residing 
in Washington; on duty in the Treasury Department of the United 
States. 

Question. What is the document that I hand you 1 

Answer. It purports to be a list of payments of the Pay Department, 
United States Army, to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
under act of Congress approved March 29, 18G7. 

Question. Whose indorsement is the first one, of date August 14, 
1873, on the back of that document % 

Answer. It purports to be that of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
William A. Richardson. 

Question. Are you familiar with his signature *? 

Answer. I am. 

Question. Have you seen him write ? 

Answer. I don't recollect having seen him write. 

Question. Whose signature is the second indorsement, of August 19, 
1873, on the back of the same document ? 

Answer. F. E. Spinner's, Treasurer of the United States. 

Question. Are you familiar with his handwriting "? 

Answer. I am. 

Question. Turn to what purports to be in this document check Ko. 
1141. Have you compared that list in any wise with the records of the 
books in your office in the Treasury Department ? 

Answer. I have this particular check. 

Question. How is that check noted on the books of the United States 
Treasury Department ? 

Answer. It is credited to General George W. Balloch, chief disburs- 
ing officer, and charged to General Howard,* 

*For " Howard " substitute " Hodge." See witness' cross-examiuation in correction 



56 

Question. Where did you obtain this check ! 

Answer. From the tiles of the Treasurer's Office. 

(Check read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit W, there being no objection on the part of the accused.) 

Question. The words on the back, in lead-pencil, " Credited Balloch 
June 17, 1867. True;" how came they on this check ? 

Answer. I just put them on there as a memorandum. 

Question. When 1 

Answ^er. This morning. 

Question. How does this check compare with the statement in the list? 

Answer. It seems to be the same number and same amount entered, • 

Question. When was it paid ? 

Answer. June 17, 1867. 

Question. Who was J. Ledyard Hodge ? 

Answer. He was additional paymaster United States Array, and sub- 
sequently paymaster. 

Question. Have you compared this list with anj' other ? 

Answer. I have not. 

The examination of the witness was here temporarily suspended. 

Maj. Thomas M. Vincent then ap]ieared before the court, and, hav- 
ing been duly sworn in the presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your name, rank, and present station. 

Answer. Thomas M.Vincent; I am assistant adjutant-general in the 
Army, with the rank of major; also brigadier-general by brevet; at 
present on duty in the Adjutant-General's Office, in this city. 

(Question. What are the papers that you hold in your hand ! 

Answer. I hold the application of Major-General Howard for the 
assignment of Lieutenant-Colonel Balloch to duty in the Freedmen's 
Bureau, in connection with subsequent orders, to the time that Gene- 
ral Balloch was relieved from duty in the Bureau. 

Question. The documents appear to be copies. What are they copies 
from "? 

Answer. They are copies from the records of the Bureau of Eefugees, 
Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and from the Adjutant-General's 
Office in the War Department. 

(Question. Certified by you as correct transcripts? 

Answer. Certified as official copies from the records. 

(Documents read to the court, and marked, respectively. Exhibits X^ 
Y, Z, A\ B\ C\ D\ ES F', and G'.) 

Question. The documents from the War Department, Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Office, copies of which have just been read — have you seen the 
originals! 

Answer. I have seen the originals. 

Question. Were you familiar with the signatures of the officers pur- 
porting to have signed those documents '? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether the signatures upon those documents 
were or not the signatures of the officers of whom they purport to be 
the signatures ? 

Answer. They were the signatures of the officers. 



57 

Question. Those clocnmeuts which I have just read which were not 
signed — where were they taken from ? 

Answer. They were taken from the permanent record-books of the 
respective offices — Commissioner's office of the Bureau of Refugees and 
Freedmen and the Adjutant-Geuerars Office. 

Question. Where did those books come from ? 

Answer. The books pertaining to the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands were the books transferred. The books from 
which the copies were made in the Adjutant-General's Office were per- 
manent records of that office. The printed copies were taken from the 
printed files of the Bureau of Refugees and Freedmen, as transferred to 
the Adjutant-General's Office. 

Question. Those were transferred by whom ? 

Answer. Transferred by the Commissioner of the Bureau, General 
Howard. 

Question. From what books were those two letters taken which do 
not appear to have been signed 1 

Answer. They were taken from the permanent record-books of the 
Bureau of Refugees and Freedmen. 

Question. What description of record-books ? 

Answer. Books of letters sent. 

Question. Who was the Commissioner at the date at which those let- 
ters purport to have been sent ? 

Answer. General O. O. Howard was the Commissioner. 

Question. What are those paper's that you hold in your hand now "? 

Answer. These are copies of papers from the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, Adjutant General's Office, War De- 
partment proper, relating to the application, the assignment, &c., of 
Captain J. M. Brown, assistant quartermaster, between the dates of 
May 26, 1865, and January 5, 1871 ; and also, a letter from the War 
Department to the Second Auditor, furnishing copies of certain papers 
which are here, and connected with the same subject. 

(Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked respec- 
tively (there being objection made on the part of the accused) Exhibits 
B.\ r, J\ K\ L\ M\ W, 0\ Pi, and Q'.) 

Question. Have you seen the originals of those documents Avhich I 
have just read and which appear to have been signed ? 

Answer. I have. By the " originals " I mean the copies as made on 
the permanent record-books; and the printed orders or circulars, as 
transferred to us, are viewed as part of the permanent records. 

Question. These documents, which are signed — are you familiar with 
the signatures of the officers by whom they purport to have been 
signed ? 

Answer. I am familiar with the signatures of the officers. 

Question. Do you know whether or not the signatures which purport 
to be the signatures of the officers to the documents which I have just 
read are the signatures of those officers ? 

Answer. They are the signatures, except in the cases noted where 
on the record-books the name is not signed. 

Question. The documents which I have just read, which were not 
signed — where were they taken from ? 

Answer. Taken from the permanent record-books of the Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Where did you get possession of those record-books '1 

Answer. Transferred by General Howard, the Commissioner, under 



58 

the order discontiuuiug the Freedman's Bureau, and transferring the 
records to the Adjutant-General's Office and War Department. 

There being no cross-examination, the farther examination of the wit- 
ness was postponed to a subsequent periotl on another branch of the 
case. 

The testimony ot the witness was then read over to him. During the 
reading, 

The Witness said : 

" I will qualify my testimony in the first case as to General Ballocb, by 
saying, excepting that of F. D. Sewall, acting assistant adjutant-gen- 
eral, and Samuel L. Taggart, assistant adjutant-general, whose signa- 
tures I am not familiar with." 

The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

Edward E. True was then recalled and further examined as fol- 
lows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What is this you hold in your hand ? 

Answer. J. Ledyard Hodges's check, (paymaster,) payable to Major- 
General O. O. Howard or order, for $168,932.54. 

Question How is it indorsed ? 

Answer. Indorsed " O. O. Howard, George W. Balloch." 

Question. When was it paid at the Treasury ? 

Answer. December 11, 1800. 

Question. Look at the list, which I before showed you, of payments 
by the Pay Department. (Witness does as re<iuested.) 

Answer. I tind the same number recorded here, and the same amount. 

Question. And the payment 1 

Answer. The same date, December 11, 1869. 

[Check offered in evidence. 

A copy is attached to the record and marked Exhibit E, there be- 
ing no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Cross-examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Were there corresponding credits to General Howard in the 
same book to the amounts of those two checks ? 

Answer. I think not. 

Question. Do you mean to say that the amounts of those checks stand 
charged on the books against General Howard! 

Answer. Xo, sir. 

Question. What did you mean, then, in your answer to that effect on 
your direct examination ? 

A. That was a mistake tliat I wish to correct. I was thinking at that 
time it was General Howard's check ; instead of that it was Paymaster 
Hodge's, and is charged to J. L. Hodge and his account, I was going 
to explain that afterwards. 

The judge-advocate offers in evidence a list of payments by the Pay 
Department United States Army, to the Commissioner of the Freed- 
men's Bureau, under act of Congress approved March 29, 1867, recapitu- 
lating the total amount paid b^' Paymaster Hodge, and the total amount 
paid by Paymaster Lamed. 



59 

Marked Exhibit S\ aud attached to the record, there being no objec- 
tion on the part of the accused. 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him, and pro- 
nounced by him to be correct as recorded. 

The JudCtE- Advocate then said: If the court please, I have elicited, ac- 
cording as I understood to be the desire of the court, the preliminary 
testimony bearing upon the general rules and regulations governing dis- 
bursing ofl&cers of the Army and the safe custody and faithful disburse- 
ment of the funds ; and 1 desire to proceed from this to the res f/csta, and 
to elicit testimony bearing upon the contributive negligence, if any, on 
the part of General Howard. I take it that I ought, in this matter, to 
examine witnesses aud tal^e proof as to whether frauds have been com- 
mitted as alleged in some parts of these exhibits. For example, on page 
8, of Exhibit B, the very first item mentioned in the report of the Adju- 
tant-General says, " Due colored clainuints, (174 cases,) |o3,888.31)." Part 
of those accounts came before two courts-martial, in which judgment 
was rendered against the defaulting ofticers, who were agents of the 
Bureau. I think it to be my. duty, in this behalf, to substantiate 
whether there were frauds, or not, committed in this instance of the 
one hundred and seventy-four claimants. That will take considerable 
time; there will be a great many witnesses to examine, and I would 
like to have the advice of the court in this behalf, so that I may have 
some guide in proceeding to a deternunation of this case as to the extent 
of his responsibility. I make these remarks because it may be that the 
accused will desire to say something on the subject now. 

The Accused (having received the i)ermission of the court) said, 
(through his counsel:) Only this, Mr. President: If there have been 
causes pending between tlie United States and other parties, adjudica- 
tion ought not to be brought in as operating against General Howard, 
when no opportunity has been allowed him for meeting evidence which 
may have been given there, nor opportunity of cross-examining wit- 
nesses. It may turn out, if such opportunity were aftbrded him of bring- 
ing witnesses, that the facts, upon which a verdict was given in such 
cases, might be found differently upou tlie examination of testimony 
afresh. For this reason we suppose that such judgments ought not to be 
brought in here as conclusive in this court against General Howard. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, I presume our pro- 
ceedings here are analogous to the proceedings of an ordinary court of 
inquiry under the ninety-first article of war, although this court has 
been organized under a special act. The ninety-first article of war 
says, "The parties accused shall also be i)ermitted to cross-examine and 
interrogate the witnesses, so as to investigate fully the circumstances in 
the question." The cross-examination referred to applies to witnesses 
that may be pi'oduced upon the affirmative of the question, the in- 
terrogation of M'itnesses to the examination-in-chief, of such witnesses as 
the accused, himself, may desire to present. 1 hardly tliiuk it would be 
justice to the distinguished oificer here, who is the accused, that judg- 
ments by courts-martial in the case of the two officers mentioned in 
Exhibit B should be brought in here as conclusive as to whether there 
were cases of fraud or peculation, or not, against General Howard. He 
certainly seems entitled to cross-examine the witnesses that are pre- 
sented for the affirmative in this case aud to interrogate his own. I 
have mentioned this matter to obtain tlie decision of the court upou it, 
because it will involve the summoning and the taking of the testimony, 
de bene esse, by commission, of a large number of witnesses. In this 
very first heading, presented in the report of the Secretary of War, it 



60 

is stated thattliere are one hundred and seventy-fourclaimauts who allege 
that they have not received the bounties of which the records of the 
Treasury show a settlement, which involves the questiou of the respon- 
sibility of the Commissioner for the manner in which payments were 
made from his office. 

By the Couet : 

All matters of this kind must be determined by the court with closed 
doors; but counsel may rest assured that full weight will be given to 
his argument, v/hich we think we understand. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation ; and, 

Upon the doors being re-opened, 

The court ndjourned, at 5 [>. m., to meet again on ^Monday, March 23, 
1874, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



TENTH DAY. 



Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 181G F Street, 

Washington, D. C, Monday, March 23, 1871. 
The conrt met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournmpnt. 

Frcscnt. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, (^nartermaster-General, U, S. A.; 
1. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George AV. Getty, Third Artillerv; 

G. Col. J. J. Revnolds, Third Cavalrv; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry: and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate 5 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, IT. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the ])revious meeting were read and approved. 

Hon. Robert AV. Tayler, with the permission of the court, then 
re-appeared belbre the court and made the following statement: 

I desire to make an additional statement as follows : In answering 
the question in relation to accounts settled through the First Comp- 
troller's Oftice, I ought to have excepted postal revenues and expenses, 
which do not go into the general Treasury. They are settled by the 
Auditor of the Treasury for the Post-Office Department, subject to ap- 
peal to the First Comptroller. I will add further that I have mentioned 
the particular items of the account, and not small accounts. 

Mr. GEORaE W. Balloch, late brevet brigadier-general United States 
Volunteers, was then called before the court, and having been duly 
sworn, in the presence of the accused, testified as follows: 

Direct examination. 
By the Judge-Advocate : 
uestion. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 



61 

Answer. George AV. BallocU ; superiutendent of streets ; Wasbingtou, 
District of Columbia. 

Question. Do you know General Howard, here present? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Have you ever been on duty with him ; if so, for how long 
a i)eriod f 

Answer. I was on duty with him from about the 11th of jSTovember, 
1861, to April 14, 1864. " When the new Twentieth Army Corps was 
formed at Chattanooga I remained with the now corps. I believe it 
was in April, 1864; and I was then again on duty with him from about 
the 1st of June, 186r), until about the 11th of October, 1871. 

Question. Were you in the Army in 1865? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In what capacity "I 

Answer. My rank in the Army at the time I was assigned to him in 
1865 was an inspector in the Subsistence Department, with the rank of 
lieutenant-colonel of volunteers. I was one of the two ai)pointed under 
that act. 

Question. When you reported to General Howard in 1865, in what 
capacity were you ordered to report ? 

Answer. I was sent there as commissary of subsistence. I was or- 
dered to report to General Howard for duty, and he put me in charge 
of the subsistence department. 

Question. Was he then Commissioner? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Look at Exhibit Y and say whether or not it is a copy of 
the order detailing you to duty with General Howard iu 1865, [Shown 
witness.] 

Answer. It is a copy. 

Question. What duty did Major-General Howard put you upon when 
you reported to him as Commissioner of the Freedmeii's Bureau ? 

Answer. At first, I was put in charge of the subsistence department. 
On the 20th of June, 1865, I was detailed to perform the duties of chief 
accounting and disbursing officer in the Bureau. 

[Exhibit A^, attached to the record, shown witness and identified by 
him as a copy.] 

Question. Do you know by what authority you were assigned to those 
duties? 

Answer. The second duty ". 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. By authoritj' of the Commissioner, I expect. 

Question. How long did you perform the duties of chief accounting 
and disbursing ofiicer of the Bureau of Befugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands ? 

Answer. From the date of that appointment until the 11th of Octo- 
ber, 1871. I dropped tbe word "accounting," after a while ; it was too 
much labor to write it ; I simply wrote it "disbursing officer." 

Question. How long did you remain on duty in your capacity of in- 
spector of subsistence, with General Howard? 

Answer. I remained until the issue of the supplies to the destitute 
through the South commenced, when Gen. E. Whittlesey was assigned. 
I had an order from General Howard ; at the time the issue of the sup- 
plies was ordered to the destitute through the South by the Secretary 
of War, he detailed Gen. E. Whittlesey to that duty, and that relieved 
me. That order was dated Washington, April 3, 1867, paragraph 4. 
I had nothing to do with the Subsistence Department after that, as 



62 

Brevet Bnc . Gen. E. Whittlesey was appointed by General Howard to 
perform those duties. 

Question. How long did you retain your rank as lieutenant-colonel in 
the Subsistence Department ? 

Answer. Until May 9, 1867. 

Question. Were you mustered out of the volunteer service at any 
time? 

Answer. Mustered out on the 30th of August, 1868. 

Qustion. By orders from what source"? 

Answer. The Secretary of War. 

Question. Under what authority did you thereafter continue in the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, to i^erform tLe 
duties of accounting and chief disbursing officer? 

Answer. Under authority of section 4 of the Bureau act of J868; it 
was a continuation of section 4 of the Bureau act of 1866. 

Question. Is it contained in that exhibit? [Exhibit D^ shown wit- 
ness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In what manner were you retained under that act after 
your muster-out from the volunteer service; was it by any communica.- 
tion from higher authority, or simply on your previous order? 

Answer. JBy order of the Commissioner. 

Question. [Exhibit C' shoum witness.] Do you know whether that is 
a copy from tlie original ? 

Answer. I have no reason to doubt it. 

[Read to the court.] 

Question. Who had supervision over your office as chief disbursing 
officer ? 

Answer. The Commissioner. 

Question. To what extent was that supervision exercised ? 

Answer. By ordering my office to be inspected occasionally ; and I 
was in constant daily communication with him as to the business of the 
office, and conferred with him always upon anything of importance. 

Question. Where was his office located with reference to your office? 

Answer. In the same building. Once our rooms were adjoining. 
After we moved up into the Howard University it was just across the 
hall. It was within a few steps always. 

Question. Where were the books, papers, and records of your office 
kept ? 

Answer. Kept in the rooms assigned to me. 

Question. What inspections, if any, were made by the Commissioner 
himself? ' 

Answer. He used to go through my office frequently, every two or 
tLree weeks, and inquire of the clerks how business w^as going on, and 
examine the books himself, and question me. If I didn't go into his 
room and report, he always came to mine every few days to find out 
how things were going on ; he had it inspected by other officers of the 
Bureau very often — once in two or three months. They inspected my 
office and I inspected theirs. 

Question. During the course of these inspections by your immediate 
superior, was your attention at any time directed to anything in the 
conduct of the business of your office that seemed to require remark ? 

Answer. I don't remember of any occasion where I was criticised 
very much. 

Question. Has your attention been directed to the resolution of Con- 



63 

gress, api^roved March 29, 1807, in reference to the collection and pay- 
ment of moneys due colored soldiers and sailors, and so forth ? 

Answer. I think I have studied that pretty thoroughly. 

Question. Do you know what system was established under that res- 
olution in the office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Eefugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands toward the payment of claims ? 

Answer. When the certificates first came from the Second Auditor's 
to the Commissioner, they were sent to the chief of the c'aims division 
to have the fees adjusted. 

Question. By Avhom I 

Answer. By the chief of the claim division; he had charge of adjust- 
ing the fees and advances that are spoken of in that law, and after he 
got through with the certificate he sent each certificate with the fee- 
bill as allowed by him into me for payment. . I then paid the attorney 
the fees that had been allowed by the chief of the claim division, and 
then paid the balance to the claimants, when I could find them. In 
the payment of the fees and the amount due the claimant I got up a 
set of vouchers myself; there was no form, and that voucher is still 
in use. 

Question. By whom was the certificate from the Second Auditor sent 
in to the chief of the claim division ? 

Answer. It came from the Second Auditor in a large envelope ad- 
dressed to General Howard ; then on the corner would be written 
"claim division." So it went to the chief of the claim division direct, 
although addressed to the Commissioner. 

Question. The form of vouchers which you say you jirepared, was it 
ever submitted for approval to an^^ authority ? 

Answer. I submitted the form of it to the Commissioner, and I after- 
ward submitted it to the Second Comptroller; he said it was the sim- 
l)lest form of voucher there was in use in the Treasury Department. 

Question. Please state fully the system that w^as established in order 
to make payments to claimants under that resolution. 

Answer. There were two methods pursued. To some of the disburs- 
ing officers and agents of the Bureau stationed through the States the 
money and the voucher were sent at the same time ; to others it was 
not, because they had no safe place to keep funds, and they didn't 
want the money ; they had to carry it in their pockets, sometimes. 
To these agents the vouchers would be sent first, and they would get 
them signed and send them back to me ; then I would send a check if 
the agent was a reliable man, a man who had had exiierience in disburs- 
ing money. If three'or four claims came in at once, a check would be 
drawn for the whole to his order, and sent to him. In other cases a 
check would be drawn in each individual case to the order of the claim- 
ant and sent to the agent. 

Question. Between what dates was that system established ? 

Answer. It was in force while I had charge of the office. 

Question. Can you fix the time of the commencement of that sj'stem ? 

Answer. I believe the first voucher under that act was paid on the 
19th of April, 1807, 1 think, and was in force as long as I had charge of 
the office. 

Quesiion. Whose system was this that was established! 

Answer. My own, after conferring with the Second Comptroller and 
others for their advice. 

Question. Whom were the other persons that you conferred with on 
the subject ? 

Answer. I don't remember particularly, except the Second Comptroller. 



64 

I thiuk I conferred with some of the paymasters of the Army; Major 
Eoehester, probably. 

QuestioiJ. Was this system approved iu any quarter? 

Answer. It was approved by the Second Comptroller and by the Com- 
missioner. 

Question. At what date did the Commissioner approve it? 

Answer. Upon its adoption. 

Question. In April, 1807 ? 

Answer. It was about the 19th of April, 1SG7, that the first voucher 
was paid. 

Question. Have you the rules and regulations, if any, which were 
promulgated upon the subject of the payment of claims under that 
resolution ? 

Answer. I have some of them ; some I have not. 

Question. How were the parties appointed through whom you en- 
deavored to carry this resolution into effect? 

Answer. Some of them were officers in the Army, detailed by the War 
Department ; some of them were civilians, appointed by the Secretary of 
War, upon tlie nomination of the Commissioner. There may have been 
one or two that were appointed by the Commissioner upon his own au- 
thority, but there was a resolution passed through Congress — one of the 
acts relating to the Bureau — which made it obligatory that all appoint- 
ments in the Bureau had to be made by order of the Secretary of War, 
as I understood. 

Question. Do you know whether or not that act of Congress was com- 
plied with ? 

Answer. I think it was. 

Question. Do you know ? 

Answer. I don't know of my own knowledge. 

Question. When you sent money to agents, or drafts or checks, for 
the purpose of paying colored claimants under that resolution, did you, 
at the time, know whether or uot those persuus were appointed by the 
Commissioner or by the Secretary of War? 

Answer. Sometimes I made payments in individual cases, through 
persons who had no appointment; for instance, claims through the 
Northern States. I would make them through the cashiers of the 
national banks. Sometimes payments were made through the regular 
officers and other officers of the Government, where there were indi- 
vidual and scattering i)ayments to be made in some remote portion of 
the country — the officers of the Kegular Army, I thiuk, the otlicers of 
the Tenth Cavalry. I have made a multitude of payments through all 
tho.se officers stationed on the frontier; but all the principal agents 
stationed in the States had appointments. 

Question. Do you know whether or not all had appointments within 
the States where slavery existed in the year 18G0, with reference to pay- 
ments under that resolution of March 20, 1807? 

Answer. I think they did, except, as I said, now and then a single 
solitary case. 

Question. Who supervised these payments made by you as chief dis- 
bursing officer? 

Answer. The Commissioner. I was constantly under his orders, 
although he left the responsibility all to me; held me responsible for 
the safe management of the business. 

Question. What instructions were issued to agents by you or by the 
Commissioner, with reference to the identification and payment of 
claims ? 



65 

Answer. There were some general instructions; but whenever an 
agent was appointed I had always to give him, or did gire him, a letter 
of specific instrnctions. 

Question. What sort of records were the agents expected to keep in 
cases of payments I 

Answer. They kept a full and complete record, when they received 
the voucher from uie, of the name, rank, company, amount, when the 
payment was made, and by whom the person was identified. 

Question. What rules were established as to the identification of 
claimants? 

Answer. The law says, "proper identification." That was always a 
rather mooted question, what " proper identification" was ; but it was 
always considered to be identification that was satisfactory to the party 
making the payment. They were instructed to be very careful, very 
particular, in the identification of these claimants ; there was the great 
difficulty in identifying the claimant. There was no fixed rule of identi- 
fication ; it had to be governed by circumstances; but it had to be satis- 
factory. 

Question. By whose authority were such general instructions given 
for the identification of claimants ? 

Answer. The general instructions were given by the Commissioner ; 
the instructions in specific cases would be given by me. The business 
was put into my hands to do. 

Question. You state that agents were required to keep a complete 
record of the name, rank, company, amount, when the payment was 
made, and by whom the person was identified. Was the instruction 
given to each agent in the paying of these claims with reference to the 
identification of the claimants, such that a complete history of the 
transaction could be traced, or not? 

Answer. I suppose that the instructions were such that a complete 
history of the transaction could be traced. 

Question. Where were those records kept ? 

Answer. The records of the agents % 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Kept by them. 

Question. Suppose you sent a iiaymentto be made to a civilian, tem- 
porarily appointed by you or by the Commissioner to make a i>ayment, 
where was his record of the transaction keptf 

Answer. If he was a regularly appointed agent, unless it was a soli- 
tary case, if the payments were enough to amount to anything, he had 
a record-book sent him to keep a history of the case in. 

Question. If he was a temporarily appointed agent ! 

Answer. If it was to pay one or two cases, no record- book would 
be sent him. If a paymaster or regular officer made one or two pay- 
ments we never gave him an appointment. Paymasters have made 
some payments, but they never had any appointment. 

Question. What records were kept at tlie office of the Commissioner 
by which to trace a complete history of the identification and payment 
of a claim ? 

Answer. I kept the general record of when the claim was sent out 
from my office ; to whom it was sent ; when it came back ; and, if there 
was any dispute about the payment, I had to refer to the agent and 
get the proof from him ; refer the case to him for explanation. I did'nt 
keep the details of identification of the separate agents in my office. I 
kept the general record. 

Question. Whentiieie was an v question as to the pavment of a claim- 
5h 



66 

aut who had been paid by the agei^cy of some civilian temporarily re- 
quested or appointed to make such jiaymeut, how were you enabled in 
your office to trace the history of the x)ayment, to ascertain to whom it had 
been made. 

Auswer. I would refer the case to the agent for a report. 

Question. Whether the agent was at the time in the service of the 
Bureau or not ? 

Answer. I never had any case of that kind that I know of. 

Question. Do you know whether funds were always sent with the 
vouchers from your office to the agent to make the payment or not 1 

Answer. I have testified that they were not in all cases. To a por- 
tion of the agents funds were sent with the vouchers; to others funds 
were not sent until the voucher had been first sent and returned signed, 
the latter being the method pursued by the pay department in paying 
bounties to white soldiers. 

Question. Signed in what manner? 

Answer. Signed by the claimant, and his signature witnessed by two 
witnesses. 

Question. What was then done with the voucher ? 

Answer. As soon as I got that voucher and sent the money and 
charged myself with the money, I gave myself credit for the voucher. 

Question. Go on and trace the whole history of the voucher from that 
time ; what was done with it? 

Answer. I put it on my abstract of payments and at the end of the 
month rendered it to the accounting officers of the Treasury as a pay- 
ment. 

Question. Did any one supervise your abstracts of payments? 

Answer. They were always examined by the Commissioner at the end 
of every month and approved. 

Question. What form did the approval take "? 

Answer. The general form at the bottom of the abstract, " The pay- 
ments on this abstract are approved." 

Question. Do you know of any instance where you have charged 
yourself with the payments and accounted to the Treasury for the pay- 
ment, in which a payment may not have been made ? 

A. I think when the Bureau wound up there was money sent back 
from the various offices through the country that had not been called 
for, and it was turned into the Treasury, and those vouchers that had 
been put in were canceled. 

Question. Do you know whether all such funds were paid into the 
Treasury or not ? 

Answer. They were ; so far as I know. 

Question. How far do you know ? 

Answer. I was relieved on the 11th ot October, 1871, but the Bureau 
did not wind up until the 1st of July, 1872. General Howard made 
payments, and Major Brown made payments after 1 did, in precisely the 
same way that I did, 1 suppose. I don't know how much of that money 
that came back was on vouchers I sent out, on which I had claimed 
payment, or how much was on theirs. I don't know anything about 
that. 

Question. How were you relieved from duty in the Bureau? 

Answer. By order of the Secretary of War. 

Question. What form did that order take ? 

Answer. I have not the order here relieving me. The Commissioner 
wrote me a letter saying, by order of the Secretary of War, I was re- 



G7 

lieved from duty, [Exhibit F' sbown witness. | I think that isau exact 
copy of my order, to \vhi(;h I refer now. 

Question. Whom was it signed by f 

Answer. Signed by the Commissioner himself, if my memory serves 
me. 

[Exhibit read to the court.] 

Question. Do you recollect whether you received any subsequent or- 
der relieving you from duty in the Bureau ? 

Answer. 1 think I did. [Exhibit G' shown witness.] This is the or- 
der 1 refer to. 

Question. Do you recollect both of them ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[Read to the court.] 

Question. \yho signed the original ? 

Answer. I think General Howard signed it. I don't remember. I 
can bring down the order. 

Question. Please bring it down to-morrow. AVhat checks were es- 
tablished by you or by the Commissioner to insure an adequate protec- 
tion of the claimant under the joint resolution of March I'll, 18(i7, after 
the money had left your contr(jl ? 

Answer. That would depend upon the liability of the agent in a great 
measure. 

Question. Give a general idea of how the business was transacted. 

Answer. There were specific instructions given from time to time to 
the agents to be very cautious and careful, and to keep the claimant out 
ot the hands of unprincipled men who were lying around all the places 
where payments were made to rob him and cheat him, and everything 
was done that could be to jn'otect him in every way. 

Question. Try to be a little more specific in stating how everything 
was done. 

Answer. I don't know that I can state it any more specifically. Per- 
sons who did not perform this duty have no idea of the difficulty of 
making those payments. 

Question. How did you ascertain that money which had been re- 
mitted to agents to pay claims had not been paid ? 

Answer. They were required to make a monthly return, at the end of 
every month, giving a list of the unpaid claims in their hands for which 
they held money. 

Question. Was that the way that you ascertained in every instance 
that they had money in their hands for which the claimants had not 
called ? 

Answer. That was the way I kept track of them. 

(Question. In every instance? 

Answer. As lar as I raw remember. 

Question. Can you swear positively in regard to it ? 

Answer. I canru^t. That was the rule. Every agent was required to 
make a return at the end of every month of the unpaid claims in his 
hands. 

Question. What other returns were the agents required to make ? 

Answer. If they had [H'operty in their hands they had to make prop- 
erty-returns. 

(Question. 1 refer more i)articularly to funds, checks or drafts. 

Answer. Those agents to whom money was sent in bulk, and they 
had it on deposit in some depositary, were obliged to make a weekly 
return to me of money they iiad in their hands, in order that I might 
make the required returns to the Treasury Department. 



68 

Qiiestiou. When yoii sent your check or draft, as chief disbursing offi- 
cer, in order to pay the chiiiuant, and had in your possession at the 
same time the voucher duly signed by the chiimant in the form of a 
receipt, how did you know what had become of the money ? 

Answer. As I said, I directed them to make this monthly return of 
the checks in their hands, giving the number, and by looking at my 
accounts with the depositary or national bank 1 could tell whether that 
check had been drawn or not. And in addition to that, the last year I 
was in the Bureau, the Commissioner required agents to send to him a 
liiemorandum-receipt when the claimant was actually paid, so he could 
know ; he wanted to have a check on me. That was sent without my 
knowledge. When the agent made a payment he took a memorandum- 
receipt in addition to the receipt he sent to me, and sent it direct to the 
Commissioner. 

Question. From tlie passage of the joint resolution of March 29, 18G7, 
down to the date that you were relieved as chief disbursing officer of 
the Bureau in 1871, who accounted to the Treasury for all the money 
paid under that resolution between those dates ? 

Answer. I accounted for it myself. 

Question. And all the vouchers that you rendered to the Treasury 
were accompanied by what description of paper, if any "? 

Answer. By the regular abstracts and accounts current. 

Question. Of payments under this resolutiou of March 29, 1867 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What approval, if any, was upon all those papers'? 

Answer. They had the general approval of the Commissioner, as I 
have before stated. 

Question. When you sent a draft or check to an agent to make a pay- 
ment, what records dul you keep in your office of the circumstances of 
sending that draft or check ? 

Answer. A letter-press book gave the whole transaction. 

Question. Were there any other documents of record 1 

Answer. Where I sent the money and voucher at the same time I 
charged each agent with the cases sent him, and when he returned them 
paid I gave him credit. 1 kept an account with him in that way, be- 
sides the letter-press book. 

Question. You spoke of some regular officers having been detailed as 
agents; why were not funds transferred to them, according to general 
rales governing disbursing officers, in order that they could account for 
such funds to the Treasury direct '? 

Answer. The disbursements were all made in my name, at the sugges- 
tion of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, to simplify the rendering 
of accounts. He said the Treasur.y Department could not open accounts 
with the multitude of agents we had. Had a full conference with him 
on the subject. After talking the matter all over with him, it was de- 
cided that the method adopted was the very best and simj)lest method 
that could be had. 

(Question. What knowledge had General Howard of this consultation 
with the Second Comptroller and the Second Comptroller's views upon 
it, if any ? 

Answer. I reported to him about my interview with the Second Comp- 
troller and he approved it. 

Question. Do you recognize that circular? [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir ; this is a copy of the law. 

Question. It is a circular issued by the Commissioner ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 



69 

[Read in evidence and attached to the record and marked Exiiibit T' ; 
admitted as gennine on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who issued that circuUir ? 

Answer. I suppose the Commissioner issued it. 

Question. Do you know Avhether he did or not ! 

Answer. I do not, except that it bears the impress of his name and 
rank. I have every reason to believe it is genuine. 

Question. Have you ever seen that circuhir ? [Circuhir shown to 
witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know by whom it was issued ? 

Answer. I suppose by the Commissioner. 

[Read in evidence and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit U^ ; 
admitted as genuine on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Have you ever seen that circular before ? [Circular shown 
witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir ; 1 wrote the circular, of which this is a copy, myself. 

Question. Bywhat authority was it issued 'I 

Answer. The authority of the Commissioner, General Howard ; I am 
the author of it. 

[Read to the court.] 

[Exhibits T^ and U^ are admitted by the accused to have been issued 
by him. 

Circular last read offered in evidence, attached to the record, and 
marked V^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Have you ever seen that before? [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know by whom it was issued ? 

Answer. I have reason to believe it was issued by the Commissioner. 

[Admitted by the accused; read in evidence, and attached to the 
record and marked Exhibit W^, there being no objection on the part of 
the accused.] 

Question. Have you ever seen that circular before ? [Circular shown 
witness.] 

Answer. I don't think I ever saw that ; I suppose I did, but I don't 
remember it. 

[Admitted by the accused to have been issued by him ; offered in evi- 
dence, and attached to the record and marked Exhibit X.\ there being 
no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. You stated that the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 
signed generally the abstracts to all the payments that you made under 
the resolution of March 29, 18C7 ? 

Answer. He did, in all cases, I think. 

Question. What was the form of that approval ? 

Answer. I have not it in my head. It was an approval of the pay- 
ment of the vouchers noted on the abstract. It was the general 
approval of the payments made. 

Question. What do you mean by " general approval ?"' 

Answer. Instead of approving each individual voucher as is custom- 
ary in some cases, on account of his inability to write and the large 
number of vouchers, he approved the abstract in the aggregate. 

Question. And what were noted upon these abstracts '? 

Answer. It was a recapitulation of the vouchers paid during the month, 
whether to attorneys or to claimants. He got permission from the 
Auditor to approve the abstract instead of approving each voucher, on 
account of his physical inability. 



70 

Question. Did these abstracts contain a complete description of each 
voucher ! 

Answer. The vouchers were numbered on the abstract, and the nnm- 
ber on the back of the vouchers corresponded. I think it simply gave 
the person's name, to whom paid, aud the amount. All the vouchers 
paid in any one day would be put on the abstract for that day, arranged 
on the abstract according to date of payment. 

Question. Were all payments made by you under the resolution of 
March 29, 1S67, so approved? 

Answer. 1 think they were. 

Question. Why was it necessary that the Commissioner should ap- 
prove these vouchers, or abstracts ? 

Answer. I believe it is necessary for all heads of Bureans to approve 
the vouchers of their subordinates. We followed the custom in the Army. 
For instance, a brigadier-general approved the vouchers of his com- 
missary and quartermaster; and as we kept np a sort of Army organiz- 
ation in the Bureau, the same forms continued. Every month when he 
approved my abstract he carefully examined the vouchers, and if any 
thing wanted explanation he would call on me for an explanation 
before he approved it. That showed that he kept an oversight upon 
what I was doing; kept a run of how much money I was disbursing; 
an oversight of the business in that way. 

Question. Have you ever seen that circular ? 

[Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[Admitted by the accused to have been issued by him, read and 
attached to the record aud marked Exhibit Y^, there being no objection 
on the part of the accused.] 

Question. After the passage of that act of July IG, 1808, officers of 
Volunteers and the Y'eteran Eeserve Corps who had been acting in the 
Bureau and had been mustered out — how were they re-appointed ? 

Answer. As far as I know they were re-appointed by order of the 
Secretary of War, as I understood. 

Question. Do you know anything on the subject ? 

Answer. Xot specifically. There is a clause in one of the acts making 
it necessary for them to be re-appointed by the Secretary of War. 

Question. Do you know whether they were re-appointed in that man- 
ner I 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. How were they paid after the passage of this act ! 

Answer. What do you mean by the word " how !" 

Question. From what appropriation — ti)r the support of the Army or 
the pay department ? 

Answer. Paid from appropriations for the support of the Freed men's 
Bureau. 

Question. Paid by you as chief disbursiug officer, while so acting ? 

Answer. Either through me or through disbursiug officers in the 
States. 

Question. Do you know by whom that circular was issued of August 
3, 18G8 ? [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. J don't know of my own knowledge; I suppose by the Com- 
missioner. 

[The judge-advocate said, the circular is dated " War Department, 
Washington, August 3, 18G8, Circular I^o. 7," and simply publishes the 
act of Congress ap[)roved July 20, 18GS, published by O. O. Howard^ 



71 

Major- General and Commissioner. As the court takes judicial cogni- 
zance of this act it is not necessary to enter it as an exhibit.] 

[Read to the court.] 

Question. Have you ever seen that circular ? [Circular shown wit- 
ness.] 

Answer. Yes, 

[Admitted by the accused to have been issued by him. Attached to 
the record and marked Exhibit Z\ there being no objection on the part 
of the accused.] 

[Circular read to the court.] 

Question. Do you know whether or not the Secretary of War ap- 
proved that circuUir letter ? 

Answer. I don't know of my own knowledge- 
Question. Have you seen that circular f [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes. That is an extract from one of the laws. 

[Admitted by the accused. Read to the court, and attached to the 
record, and marked Exhibit A^.] 

Question. Do you know by whom that was issued ? [Circular shown 
witness.] 

Answer. I don't know of my own personal knowledge. 

[Admitted by the accused, read to the court and attached to the record, 
and marked Exhibit B^.] 

Question. Do you know whether the Secretary of War approved this 
circular ? 

Answer. I don't know of ray own knowledge. 

Question. Have you ever seen the original of that ? [Circular shown 
witness.] 

Answer. I drafted it. 

Question. By whose authority was it authorized ? 

Answer. The Commissioner's. 

[Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit C^, 
there being no objection on the part of tlie accused.] 

Question. Are you familiar with that? [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Who issued it? 

Answer. It was issued by the Commissioner. 

[Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit D^, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who issued this circular ? [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. This was issued by the Commissioner. 

[Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit E'^, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who issued that circular. [Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. The Commissioner. 

[Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit F^, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who issued that ? [Circular shown w itness.] 

Answer. That was issued by the Commissioner. That is the one I re- 
ferred to in my testimony a few minutes ago. 

[Read to the court and attached to the record, and marked Exhibit G^, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. W^ho issued that circular ? 

[Circular shown witness.] 

Answer. Issued by the commissioner, read by the court, and attached 
to the record and marked Exhibit IP, there being no objection on the 
part of the accused. 



72 

Question. You say letter-press books were kept of letters of trans- 
mittal coutaiiiiug checks or drafts forwarded b^^ yoa to tlie agents to 
pay bounties. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was any other record kept in your office of such transac- 
tions ? 

Answer. iS"one, except as I have heretofore stated, where I sent the 
money and vouchers at the same time. I kept an account with each 
disbursing officer, charging him with the vouchers, and, when they came 
back, giving him credit. 

Question. What knowledge had the Commissioner, if any, of the 
manner in which you transacted the business of your office ? 

Answer. He had full knowledge of it from his constantly examining 
my accounts, overlooking the business. The letter-books were always 
open for his inspection. He was very often in the office, looking over 
the letter-books, seeing what was being done, making inquiries of the 
clerks and myself. 

Question. What knowledge had he of the manner in which claims 
were being i^aid by iirst obtaining the receipt of the claimant to the 
voucher ? 

Answer. He had no definite knowledge until he issued that circular 
requiring them to send the information direct to him. 

(Question. How could he have obtained such knowledge '? 

Answer. Whenever he wanted knowledge in any particular case he 
inquired of me, and I furnished it. 

(Question. Could he have obtained any such information by reference 
to the I'ecords in your office, if he so desired '^ 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. With reference to payments by sending checks or drafts or 
funds to agents throughout the country, was any record kept of such 
transactions except the record in what you call the letter-press books ? 
If so, what"? 

Answer. The last year I was in charge of the office the work became 
so reduced I was enabled to keep a regular letter-book, according to the 
War-Department regulations. I was unable to do it before that on ac- 
count of the i)ress of business on my hands. 

Question. Were or not all transactions of this nature then recorded 
simply in the letter-press books"? 

Answer. They were all in the letter-press books; and after the 1st of 
January, 1871, the regular letter-book, according to the regulations, 
was opened, into which was copied the transactions from the letter- 
l^ress book — letters sent and letters received. 

Question, Were those the only letters you had bearing upon such 
transactions ? 

Answer. Except as I before stated. They were large record-books, 
kept in the office, on which the whole transaction was entered, except 
the names of the witnesses — when the certificate was received, who the 
attorney was, the name of the man, his rank, company, regiment, and 
attorney's fees and address, I believe the last-known address of the 
man, and when the attorney's fee was paid and when the man was paid. 
There were large registers for that purpose. 

Question. When did you note the fact of the payment to an individual 
under the resolution of March 29, 1807 1 

Answer. In case I sent the money and the voucher at the same time 
to the agent, I noted the fact of the payment when I received the 
voucher back, i)roi)erly signed. If I sent the voucher out first, it was 



73 

sent back to me signed, and I tlieu transmitted the check. It was paid 
wheu I parted with the money, when I transmitted the check through 
the mail. I charged myself with the money then aud credited myself 
with the payment. 

Question. How did you know that the money had been received by 
the agent ? 

Answer. The moment the check was received the agent always ac- 
knowledged it. If he did not acknowledge it within what I thought was 
proper time, I wrote him, stating that on such a day I transmitted him 
such and such checks, and asking him if they had been received. I 
knew how long it ought to take a letter to go and get an answer back ; 
and if it overrun two or three days, I always sent out a letter of inquiry, 
so as to keep track of the money. 

Question. Did you close your monthly abstracts of payments made 
before or after receiving a list from your agents of moneys in their 
hands on the last day of the month, which they had not as yet turned 
over to the claimants ? 

Answer. I closed it before. That supplementary report had nothing 
to do with the rendition of my accounts. I closed my aceonut promptly 
on the last day of every month. 

Question. When you ascertained from one of the sub-agents that a 
claimant had not called for his check, or had not been found, or had not 
called for the funds, if the remittance was in the form of funds, did you, 
or not, take up in yout account-current that amount as in the Treasury 1 

Answer. I did not. I had parted company with the money, and I 
never touched it afterward. 

Question. What accountability, if any, had those agents to the 
Treasury '? 

Answer. They had none. 

Question. To whom were they accountable I 

Answer. Accountable to me — through me to the Commissioner. I 
held them accountable, and the Commissioner held me accountable. 
They were under bonds as disbursing ofticers. When you asked me 
what checks were employed to protect claimants, I omitted to state the 
fact that the agents were bonded, except such as were officers of the 
Army. 

Question. To whom did these disbursing officers give bonds f 

Answer. To the United States, with only one exception, where the 
bond ran to the Commissioner. 

Questiou. What was that one exception ? 

Answer. The case of St. Clair Maude ville, of New Orleans. His bond 
ran to the Commissioner; the first bond we ever took. 

Question. Where were those bonds tiled which were given to the 
United States 1 

Answer. 1 kept them in my office safe. 

Questiou. In what sums were those agents required to give bonds ! 

Answer. I don't remember whether there was a uniform sum i^re- 
scribed or not. My impression is that it was either 8-5,00() or $6,000. I 
think Mandeville's' bond was 83,000, if I recollect right. I don't remem- 
ber ; it is so long ago. 

Question. What kind of sureties were on those bonds, if any ; or were 
they simj)ly personal bonds ? 

Answer. Two or more sureties were required. I think they had to be 
approved by au officer of the United States court. Mandeville's bond was 
approved by General Mower, assistant commissioner for Louisiana at 
the time. 



74 

Question. Under wliat authority were those bonds taken? 

Answer. There really was no specific authority at law for it, but it 
was thono-ht best by the Commissioner to i)ut them under bonds as a 
matter of i)recautiou. 

Question. Do you know for what i)urpose ? 

Answer. To protect the Government in case of defalcation. 

Question. Do you know whether all the agjeots who disbursed moneys 
in the payment of colored soldiers and sailors under that resolution were 
put under bonds ? 

Answer. They were — not all. Some of the cashiers of the Freedu)en's 
Savings and Trust Com])any were disbursing- officers of the Bureau. 
They were not put under bonds to us. They were under bonds to the 
company. The company themselves signified to us that they would 
be responsible to us in case any of their agents were defaulters. 

Question. Were there any civilians who were called on temporarily to 
make payments put under bonds ^^ 

Answer. All agents that amounted to anything who had a regular sta- 
tion were under bonds as far as I know — all civilians. 

Question. Did you, or not, sometimes send money to make payments 
in exceptional cases, at a distance from "where the agent was located, 
and send it then to some private individual ' 

Answer. Very rarely. If I ever did, it was done with the assurance 
of somebody that I knew that the person to whom I sent was honest 
and reliable. 

Question. Were such, persons required to give bonds ? 

Answer. No, sir; not for a simple disbursement. 

Question. What was the object of making the cashiers of th.3 Freed- 
men's Saving and Trust Company agents? 

Answer. Because they had facilities for identifying colored claimants 
better than anybody else. Most of them were depositors in their banks, 
and they had better facilities for identification than any other class of 
agents we could get. The company agreed, if we would let them make 
the payments, that they would be responsible for any defalcation. 

Question. Did you have that in writing? 

Answer. I believe I did have it in writing; I don't remember cer- 
tainly. I think I did have it in writing from Colonel Eaton, the actuary. 

Look at these papers. [Papers shown to witness.] Have you seen 
those before ? 

Answer. I could not tell. They evidently went from my office. They 
have my office mark upon them. They are evidently my vouchers, and 
I am willing to admit that they are. 

Question. Is that the form that you drew up, as you say in your testi- 
mony ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether the individuals who have signed 
their names by mark to the receipts have received the amounts of 
money mentioned? 

Answer. I do not, of my own knowledge. 

Question. Do you know whether or not you took credit for those 
amounts in your account to the Treasury ? 

Answer. From my office mark on the back, I presume I did. 

Question. Were those the description of vouchers mentioned in your 
testimonj^ which the Commissioner was accustomed to examine ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Before ajiproving tlie abstracts? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 



75 

[Offered in evidence and read to the court. A copy is attached to the 
record, and marked Exhibit P, there being no objection on the part of 
the accused.] 

Question. You say in this statement "balance paid claimant, $287." 

Answer. That is a memorandum statement simply, giving the history 
of each case. 

Qnestiou. Do you know whether the claimant ever actually received 
that money or not ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Who is the witness to that document ? [Paper shown wit- 
ness.] 

Answer. Two witnesses; one is O. C. French and the other is C. C. 
Walden. 

Question. Who is O. 0. French ? 

Answer. He was an agent of the Bureau at Natchez. He is now a 
member of the house of representatives of the State of Mississippi. 

Question. At the time this purports to have been witnessed by him, 
was he acting in that capacity as agent for the Bureau ! 

Answer. He was an acting agent at the time. 

Question. Do you recollect to whom that amount was sent for pa.y- 
meut? 

Answer. I don't. 

Question. Was that amount paid here in Washington on the 10th 
of June, 1871 1 

Answer. It is probably the day on which I sent the amount to him 
or some one else — the day I parted company with the money. 

Question. To whom do you refer ? 

Answer. To O. C French, if it was sent to him. 

Question. Who was C. C. Walden ? 

AnsAver. I think he had something to do with the Internal Revenue 
Department. 

Question. By whom was that date, " June 10," filled in ? 

Answer. By one of my clerks in my office, whose name was Frank 
Wilson, I think. 

[Offered in evidence. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit J 2, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

The court then, at 2 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m., adjourned to meet 
again to-morrow, Tuesday, March 24, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



ELEVENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, 3Iarch2^, 1874—11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 



76 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

o. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery, U. S. A.; 

0. Col. J. J. Eevuolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., j adge-advocate ; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes and the proceedings of yesterday Avere read and approved. 

The witness, George W. Balloch, pronounced his testimony of yester- 
day to be correct as recorded. 

The direct examination of George W. Balloch was then resumed 
the judge-advocate, as follows: 

Question. Have you with you the original order relieving you from 
duty in the Bureau, to which mention was made yesterday ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. Examine Exhibit G', and say whether it is a copy or not. 

Answer. It is a coj^y. The original is signed " O. O. Howard." 

Question. Do you know that to be General Howard's signature ? 

Answer. I do. 

[Admitted by tlie accused to be his signature.] 

Question. Do you know who issued that circular '? [Circular shown 
witness.] 

Answer. I suppose it was issued by the Commissioner, Gen. O. O. 
Howard. 

[Admitted by the accused, and read in evidence.] 

A copy is attached to the record and marked Exhibit K-, there being 
no objection on the jiart of the accused. 

Question. The resolution of March 29, 1867, says no money shall be 
j)aid to any person except the claimant or his or her legal representa- 
tives, if deceased. Did you pay the money due to claimant to him or 
to some other person '1 

Answer. It was paid to the legal claimant, unless you mean by paying 
to the agent it was paid through ; all those I paid myself were paid to 
the claimant directly. Those I paid through agents were paid by the 
agent to the claimant. 

Question. How did the Commissioner, if at all, provide for the satis- 
factory identitication of a claimant under that resolution ! 

Answer. I don't know of any general regulation, because the same 
method of identification could not be established in all cases; the iden- 
tification had to be according to circumstances. The same form would 
not hold good in every case. That is what I mean to say. A universal 
form could not be established. You had to vary the form according to 
the circumstances of the case. 

Question. Do you know whether public moneys were paid to wrong 
parties by you, or through you, which were due and ])ayable to lawful 
claimants ? Say to what extent, if such payments were made. 

Answer. I have reason to believe that there were a considerable num- 
ber of wrong payments made. I could not tell the amount or number. 
I made one or two myself. 

Question. Please state definitely whether any general instructions 
were given agents or sub-agents on tliis subject of ideutiflcauon, or 
whether instructions were specifically issued to each one? 

Answer. As said before, I do not remember of any general instruc- 
tions as to methods of identification ever having been given. My spe- 
cific instructions always were to be very careful and use all means, so 
as to be sure beyond all doubt. 



77 

Question. If specific instructions were tlius issued, where are such 
instructions to be found ? 

Answer. Probabl.v in the letter-press books. 

Question. You say probably; what do you mean by the use of that 
term? 

Answer. Sometimes I might have written a confidential letter that 
did not go into the letter-book. 

Question. Who issued such instructions; you or General Howard.' 

Answer. The specific instructions f 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Issued by myself. 

Question. What supervisory- action did he exercise over your official 
action in this respect? 

Answer. He didn't exercise any in ordinary cases. If there was any 
extraordinary case, I generally conferred with him about it. 

Question. Do you know whether or not the Commissioner at any time 
after March 29, 18G7, prescribed that it should be necessary for the 
claimant for bounty to establish by affidavits of two credible witnesses 
that he is the identical person named in the certificate, as provided in 
the third section of the act of Congress approved July 2G, 1SG6, in cases 
where colored soldiers could previously be paid by checks, drafts, or 
orders 1 

Answer. I don't think that rule was ever adopted. 

Question. Eefer to voucher Exhibit P. [Exhibit shown witness.] 
What did the witnesses French and Walden attest ? 

Answer. They attested the signature of the claimant. 

Question. Where did the claimant in this case receive the current 
funds due him, as regulated by the resolution of March 29, 18671 

Answer. I cannot tell you whether he received it at Natchez or some 
other place. French was stationed at Natchez, Miss. 

Question. Where were the witnesses whose names appear on the 
voucher at the time the current funds are reported by you to have been 
given to claimant ? 

Answer. I could uot tell. 

Question. As a matter of fnct, what proportion of agents of the 
Bureau, actually, exclusive of commissioned Army officers, were required 
to give bonds for the faithful performance of their duties, under the 
resolution of March 29, 1867 ? 

Answer. I have not the list of those who gave bonds. The majority 
of them gave bonds. 

Question. Are you prepared to swear positively that the majority of 
those agents actually gave bonds? 

Answer. I should be unwilling to swear positively. My impression 
is that they did. 

Question, In that voucher (Exhibit T) shown you, does Agent French 
in any wise appear to have made the payment to that claimant ? 

Answer. It does uot so ai)pear on the voucher. The voucher pur- 
IJorts to have been paid by me. 

Question. I notice that in one of your vouchers (Exhibit I-) you have 
deducted in the settlement $10 for the amount of fees and $5.50 for 
notarial fees and then stated the balance paid claimant. What was 
done with said deducted sums ? 

Answer. They were undoubtedly paid to the attorney of record. Who 
he was I do not know^ 

Question. Were such sums invariably paid to the claimant's attorney 1 

Answer. Except in the case of suspended attorneys. 



78 

(Question. In any other instances ! 

Answer. Unlicensed and suspended. I do not kni)\v of any other. 

Question. What was done where the attorney died after the iuitiatiou 
of the claim ? 

Answer. The proper authority was obtained from the Second Auditor 
and it was paid to his administrators or executors. 

Question. Wlien such attorney as you have mentioned was suspended 
or unlicensed, what became of such notarial fees and the expense for 
the collection of the claim and the attorney's fees? 

Answer. By direction of the Second Auditor the fee was retained by 
me, awaiting the action either of the Treasury Department or the 
War ])epartment as to the restoration of the attorney. When his sus- 
pension was removed or he forwarded his license, if he was an unlicensed 
attorney, the fees were then paid to him. 

Question. Who was the Second Auditor at the time, and when did 
you receive such directions ? 

Answer. The present Auditor, E. B. French. I received directions 
very soon after commencing paying. 

Question. What year ? 

Answer. 1807. 

Question. How did yon receive such instructions ? 

Answer. He sent for me to come over to his ottice, and gave me in- 
structions verbally. I asked him to give them to me in writing, but 
he wouldn't do it. 

Question. What record was kept of such sums so withheld by you? 

Answer. I had a record-book prepared purj)osely, to keep them in — 
the name of the attorney and the name of the case in which the fee was 
deducted. 

Question. Hid General Howard direct any disposition to be made of 
such withheld sums; if so, what direction did he give ? 

Answer. He gave me no direction in the matter. 

Question. Wlien you were relieved as disbursing ofiQcer of the Bureau, 
in 1871, had you any such sums on hand; if so, what did you do with 
them 1 

Answer. I had some. I don't remember how much. Subsequently 
I transferred it to the War Department. 

Question. Who relieved you as disbursing oflScer in 1871 f 

Answer. General Howard. 

Question. Why did you not turn over those sums to him ? 

Answer. I consulted with one of the chiefs of division in the Second 
Auditor's department and he thought it would be better for me to hold 
it. 

Question. Who was the chief of division, and when did you have 
that conversation ? 

Answer. H. 0. Harmon, I think. It was at the time I was relieved. 

Question. What knowledge had General Howard, at the time he re- 
lieved you, of the retention by you of such sums, if any ? 

Answer. I don't know that he had any. 

Question. Do you know how much it amounted to ? 

Answer. I don't remember. I have Major McMillen's receipt some- 
where for it. 

Question. In round nun)bers ? 

Answer. Twenty-eight hundred dollars. 

Question. You :say you kept a record-book of such withheld fees and 
expenses; where did you keep that record-book? 

Answer. Kept it in my ofUce desk in the Bureau. 



79 

Qaestion. What opportunity bad Geueral Iloward to cxuniiiie that 
book ? 

Answer. He had the same opportunity that he had to ex;iuiine the 
others if he wanted to; the deslv was never locked. 

Question. What knowledge, it any, had he that you kept tluit book ! 

Answer. I have every reason to believe that he knew 1 Imd it; he 
knew I must have had some record, because we used occasionally to get 
orders from the War Department ordering us to pay the !ccs of attor- 
neys who had been suspended; fees that we had withheld. 

Question. Can you, or not, swear i)ositively that you turned over all 
withheld sums of this description upon being relieved as chief disburs- 
ing ofiicer? 

Answer. I think I turned over every cent in my hands, as far as I 
know. 

Question. Do you know whether or not all officers, agents, and em- 
ployes of the Bureau before entering on the duties of their offices were 
required, or not, by the Commissioner, to take the oath ])rescribed in 
the first section of the act of Congress approved March 3, LsO.j ? 

Answer. I believe they were. 

Question. Was any record kept of such oaths! If so, where was it 
kei)t ? 

Answer. It would be in the adjutant-geuerars office — the adjutant- 
general of the Bureau. 

Question. When you made payments to bounty claimants tlirough 
sub-agents, were you required by'the Commissioner to ascertain whether 
such sub-agents had taken that oath or not? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. As a matter of fact, were payments made by yon or through 
you to claimants through the ageucy of sub agents who had not taken 
the oath ? 

Answer. I don't know of any cases of that kind. 

Question. Any cases of what kind I 

Answer. If the agent was a regularly-appointed agent, where the oath 
had not been taken. 

Question. You spoke yesterday of individual cases, where you sent to 
private parties funds to make payments. 

Answer. W^ell, I have no knowledge whether they had taken the oath 
or not in individual cases. 

Question. Who was Saint Clair Mandeville! 

Answer. He was an agent of the Bureau in ]S"ew Orleans, in 1SG7. 

Question. Do you know whether or not he acted as agent in identify- 
ing claimants under that resolution of March 29, 1867! 

Answer. I believe he did. 

Question. What then was the state of his account when he ceased his 
connection with the Bureau ? State fully. 

Ausw^er. On the 1st of November, 1807, 1 received a telegram from 
Brevet Major-General Joseph A. Mower, assistant commissioner for 
Louisiana, stating that Mr. Saint Clair Mandeville died yesterday. In 
a letter written n)e by Saint Chiir Mandeville, the day he died, he told 
me that his clerk had died of yellow fever a few days previous ; also, 
that he had just recovered from it. When he died, his office was left 
with no one to take care of it. General Mower immediately took pos- 
session of the office, and detailed Captain DeGress and some other offi- 
cer as a board of examination. They opened his safe and found in it 
something over |1),()00 in money. This was believed to be Government 
funds, and was taken possession of as such. Mr. Mandeville died of 



80 

cholera while couvalescing from yellow fever. This commission also 
took possession of all books, papers, and records in the office, giving up 
to Mrs. Mandeville some private matters in his safe, trinkets, jewelry, 
and one thing and another. After a short time another agent was ap- 
pointed. Mr. C. S. Sauvinet was appointed the agent of the Bureau by 
the Commissioner, with the advice of the Secretary of War, I presume, 
and all these matters were turned over to him. He was directed to 
make a full and complete examination of the books and papers and 
records. He did so, and after several weeks reported that, in his 
opinion, a number of claimants, whose claims amounted to about 
817,000, I think, had not been paid, who appeared on Mandeville's 
books as having been pai<l. Upon that, he was directed to use the 
money found in Mandeville's safe, by the Commissioner, or by me, upon 
instructions of the Commissioner, to liquidate those claims as far as it 
went. He did so. There was a great deal of doubt and uncertainty 
about the validity of those claims. There was no possible means of 
knowing, on account of Major Mandeville and his clerk having both 
died 5 no means of knowing to a certainty. 

(Question. After making j^ayments from the money found in Mande- 
ville's safe, what deficiency, if any, did Mr. Sauvinet report as still 
existing ? 

Answer. He never reported anything. 

Question. You say that he reported there were claims for some seven- 
teen thousand and odd dollars ? 

Answer. He gave it as his opinion, after examining the books, that 
claims to the amount of about $17,000 had not been paid. 

Question. ^A^ho had accounted for that mone}" to the Treasury ! 

Answer. Tlie money sent to Mandeville I 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I had. 

Question. The money found in his safe supi)osed to be public ujoney — 
do you know whether you had vouchers for the entire amount, or not ? 

Answer. I think I had. 

Question. AVhat had you done with those vouchers'? 

Answer. Put them in the Treasury ; for I had sent him the money to 
pay them. 

Question. With what object had they been put into the Treasury 1 

Answer. To cancel the amount that I had sent him. 

Question. And to relieve whom from responsibility ? 

Answer. Myself. 

Question. After Mr. Sauvinet gave it as his opinion that there were 
about $17,000 of claims due, and but about $i),000 in the safe of Man- 
deville to meet them, to whom did that report go ? 

Answer. The report of Sauvinet ! 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It came to me, and through me to the Commissioner. 

Question. What did the Commissioner do u[)on the receipt of that 
report, or subsequent thereto, with reference to it? 

Answer. 1 think an inquiry was made of him by the Hon. W. P. 
Kellogg, United States Senator from Louisiana, in regard to the matter, 
and he made a report upon the subject to Mr. Kellogg — wrote out the 
facts as we found them. 

Question. Do you know whether any copy was retained of that com- 
munication ! 

Answer. I wrote the report myself, and I had a rough copy. 

Question. Who signed the report ? 



81 

Auswer. Geueral Howard bad it rewritteu. A copy was sent to tbe 
War Department. 

Questiou. Do j'ou know whether a copy was put on the books of the 
office, or not ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. In what respects, if any, did your rough copy differ from the 
report signed by General Howard ? 

Answer. He altered tbe phraseology in some respects. 

Question. Do you recollect how f -- 

Answer, i^^othiug material. . 

Questiou. Have you that rough report with you? 

Answer. Yes. I believe I have somewhere. 

[The witness produces the paper.] 

Question. In whose handwriting is part of this rough copy ? 

Answer. General Howard's. He struck out some that I had written. 

[A fair copy of the rough report from the books of the Bureau is ad- 
mitted by the accused to be a copy of the original signed and sent by 
him. It is attached to the record and marked Exhibit L^.J 

Question. With the exception of these changes do you know whether 
this was the letter signed and sent to Mr. Kellogg by General Howard ? 

Answer. I believe it is. 

[Read to the court.] 

Question. Do you know how Mandeville became an agent of the 
Bureau? 

Answer. On his own application, backed up by the recommendation 
of Gen. Joseph A. Mower, who was the assistant commissioner for 
Louisiana at that time. 

Questiou. Who appointed Mandeville ? 

Auswer. The Commissioner, General Howard. 

Question. Are you familiar with Colonel jMower's signature ? 

Answer. I am. I had the honor to serve with him once. 

Question. You have seen him write ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. Whose signature is this to the letter shown you "? 

Answer. That is his. 

[Letter read to the court; copy attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit M^ Also letter read to the court from Saint Clair Mandeville ; 
copy attached to the record, and marked Exhibit N^ — referred to in 
Colonel Mower's letter — there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Do you know why the circidar in evidence which sanc- 
tioned and recognized advances made by claimant's attorneys was re- 
voked by General Howard ? 

Answer. I don't know the particular reason which caused its revoca- 
tion. 

Questiou. Under what regulation did you or General Howard sanction 
the witnessing by an agent of the Bureau of a payment made by you to 
a bounty claimant ? 

Answer. The regulations required that the name must be witnessed 
by two parties who could write. It was the intention that neither of 
those parties should be an agent. I notice one of those vouchers is wit- 
nessed by an agent ; that was irregular ; there was no positive law for- 
bidding it, but I thiuk we had some regulation prohibiting it. 

Question. Nevertheless, did you or not accept Exhibit J'^ from O. C. 
French as a good voucher witnessed by him ? 
G H c 



82 

AnsA-er. I did. I did not pass the voucher inysolf. I suppose, ot 
course, I am I'esponsible for it, as it passed through my office. 

Question. Do you know whether there were any snl)-agents and Army 
officers who were on duty iu the Bureau after 1SG7 in the i)aymeut of 
bounties to claimants ' 

Answer, I think Colonel IJunkle had some in Kentucky. I don't re- 
member as to the other States. 

Question. From whom did such sub-agents derive their apjtointments ? 

Answer. If they were Army officers they were detailed by the Secre- 
tary of War; if they were civilian a:^ents they got their appointments 
from the Commissioner in the usual way. 

Question. I desired to know whether Aruiy officers who were agents 
in the several States had sub agents appointed by themselves to make 
payments of bounties ''. 

Answer. I think in Kentucky, while Colonel lluidcle was assistant 
commissioner as well as disbursing officer, by virtue of his authority as 
assistant commissioner, he may have appointed some sub agents ; but 
whether he did that without referring the appointment to the Commis- 
sioner for his contirmation, I am unable to state. 

Question. AVho was hehl responsible when paynjasters made mis- 
takes in paying bounties to white soldiers ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. You said in your testimony yesterday that vouchers signed 
by the claimants were returned to you in some instances before the 
funds were transndtted ; what did you mean by saying vouchers "signed 
by the claimants f 

Answer, lleceipted by the claiuiant. 

(Question. Ueceipted to what extent? 

Answer. By affixing their names, either by their own hands or by a 
mark, acknowledging the reception of the money. 

Question. Reception of how much money 1 

Auswer. What was due as shown by the voucher. 

Question. Please state the exact language used by tlie Commissioner 
when approving your monthly abstracts about which you have testitied f 

Answer. " I have examined the vouchers noted in the above abstract, 
and hereby approve the payment of the same." 

Question. The agents who were engaged iu paying- bounties, under 
that resolution, under you, whence did they derive their compeusation ? 

Auswer. From the Bureau. 

(Question. Do you know whether they were all salaried officers or not? 

Answer. Some were not. The cashiers of the branches ot the Freed- 
luen's Sa\ings and Trust Company, who acted as agents for us, were 
not paid by us all the time ; some of them were. In the case of Maj. 
O. C. Frenc'h, he served three or four months after he was relieved, 
without salary. 

Question. Do you know who were without salary besides those whom 
you have named 1' 

xinswer. There were a small number who made occasionally a pay- 
ment, I think, who did it without salary. 

Question. Can you recollect the names of a few of the sub-agenf s who 
were without salary? if so, please state them. 

Answer. Mr. Samuel A. Graham, of Salisbury, Md. ; he was a United 
States revenue officer. George A. Parker, of Berlin, Md., United 
States postmaster. Joseph P. Power, of Cherrystone, Va. ; he was col- 
lector of t!ie port; his brother, Charles M. Power, who succeeded him, 
was the postmaster. J. E. Bickford, at Hampton, Va., held no pubic 



83 

office ; lie bad no salary. J. L. Watennau, of Yorktowu, Va., was 
United States revenue officer; P. A. Leatherberry, of Onancock, Va., 
was United States postmaster ; Nelson Tartellott, of Norfolk, Ya., was 
cashier of the Freedmeu's Branch Savings Bank 5 he only served about a 
month. 

Question. Do you recollect the names of any others who were not in 
any official position who were appointed agents without salaries ? 

Answer. E. J. Elder, of Woodville, Miss., cashier of the railroad 
there, was recommended to me by au Army officer who had been pre- 
viously stationed there. He made a few payments. 

Question. What inducements were offered to those civilians to ac- 
ce])t the position of bounty-agents without salary"? 

Answer. There was no inducement to offer them. 

Question. Do j'ou know why they accepted such ])Ositious ? 

Answer. They did it, generally speaking, to aid the colored people 
in getting their money. 

Question. Philanthropically ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. Sometimes there would be a long petition sent up 
by tlie colored people to have such a man apjiointed. 

Question. What are these three books? [Books shown witness.] 

Answer. They are my own letterpress books. 

Question. To which you have referred in your testimony as kept in 
your office ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you recognize that signature ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. That is mine. 

Question. What was the year in which these letters in volume one 
were written ? 

Answer. 1S67. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit 0-, there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Answer, [resumed.] I don't think that was any bounty-payment 
under the law ; it was an old matter. 

Question. On page 44, letter of May 20, whose signature is that ? 
[Shown witness.] 

Answer, Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit P-, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. That is mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit Q', there being no objection on the part of the accused 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit R^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was K. S. Scruggs, mentioned in that letter? 

Answer. He was a very nice old physician living in Sweetwater, 
Tenn., whose acquaintance I made the winter we camped in Lookout 
Yalley. 

Question. Was he appointed agent of the Bureau ! 

Answer. He held 110 regular appointment. I knew him so well I 
trusted him, and he never deceived me. 

Question. Did he make the oath required by the act I have men- 
tioned 1 



84 

Auswer. 1 don't Ulow that be did ; he was a loyal East Teiinesseean. 

Qnestion. Whose signature is that to the letter of August 10? 
[Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit S^, there being no objection on the part of the accused,] 

Question. Whom were those three individuals mentioned in this letter 
of August 10? 

Answer. They were colored men living at Pungoteague, who had 
bounty due them. 

Question. Is that your signature? [Shown witness.] 

Auswer. Yes, sir. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit T-, there beiug no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What money was that due James Kedwood, to which you 
refer ! 

Answer. Prize-money, I suppose. 

Question. Under what act of Congress or resolution was it payable ? 

Auswer. Under act of March 29, 1807. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. That is my signature. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit U-, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was Major llemington I 

Answer. He was at that time in the Veteran Reserve Corps, I think; 
I don't think he had been mustered out. He was the agent who suc- 
ceeded Mr. Turtellott. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit V^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was i>vt. Maj. A. Coates ? 

Answer. An officer in the Veteran Reserve Corps, and agent of the 
Bureau at ]S"ewbern. 

Question. When did yon send that letter to him ? 

Answer. August 22, 1807. 

Qnestion. Whose signature is that! [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit W'-^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was Nathan Ritter ? 

Answer. Cashier of the branch of the Freedmen's Savings Bank at 
Charleston, S. C. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit X-, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was Mrs. Maria Blair, mentioned in this letter ? 

Answer. I don't know, unless she was the claimant for bounty. 

(Question. Was or not the statement contained in this letter of yours 
true that the check sent was for bounty due ? 

Answer. I presume the statement is true. 

Qnestion. Under what resolution or act of Congress was that bounty 
sent and paid? 

Answer. It probably belongs to the bounty described under the reso- 
lution of March 20, 1807 ; possibly it might have been some local bounty. 



85 

Questioj. To what do you refer by '' local bounty?" 

Answer. Well, I had occasion to pay some local-bounty claims that 
were put into my hands to pay. 

Question. Please make a note of this case, and be able to testify from 
your retained jiapers. Is that your signature? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit Y^, there beino- no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What bounty-money was that ? 

Answer. I presume it was the bounty under the act of March 29, 
1867. 

Question. Was there any designated depository at that time in the 
State of jS^orth Carolina where you were authorized to deposit public 
funds ? 

Answer. I don't thiidv there was at that time. The jSTational Bank 
of New Berne was afterwards designated. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit Z-, there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Why did you not keep in your office a record of oaths of 
identity of claimants ? 

Answer. Because they were rarely ever sent to me. 

Question. Whose signature is that? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit A^, there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit B', there being no objection on the part of the accus3d.] 

Question. "When was that letter sent to Mr. Percy ? 

Answer. September 14, 1807, I expect. 

Question. Bid you not keep a record in your office by which you 
would be able to determine the matter that you refer to here ? 

Answer. Yes. sir ; but, as with all otlier public officers, my clerks were 
not in all cases perfect. They would make mistakes, sometimes, in the 
press of business they had on hand. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit C\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A co]\v is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit D\ there being no objection on the part of the accussd.] 

Question. Who was Brevet Lieut. Col. F. A. Seeley '? 

Answer. He was a quartermaster in the Army, and was on duty in 
Saint Louis as agent of the Bureau. I do not think he had been mus- 
tered out at that time. Possibly he had. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit E^, there being no objection on the part of tie accused.] 



86 

Questiou. Who was W. E. Taylor, mentioned in this letter? 

Answer. I don't remember who he was. 

Question, AVbose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit r\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

(^hiestion. Do you know of any other record of this transaction than 
that which appears in this letter-book ? 

Answer. ]Sro, sir. The check-book wonl;l sliow the amount. 

Question. Will you make a memorandum of that ? Whose signature 
is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

I Letter read to the court. A copj- is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit G ', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit H^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

(Question. Do you recollect the circumstances of this transaction ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What was it for ? 

Answer. General Brewer had defended him where he had been ar- 
rested for something, and had a small bill against him. He wrote me, 
wanting me to pay it ; wanted to know if I would take the man's order. 
As I answered then, I said when 1 came to pay the man, if the man was 
X^erfectly willing and chose to give me the money, I would send it to 
him. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A co])y is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit !•', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Under what act or resolution of Congress was that pay- 
ment made 1 

Answer. I presume it was under the act of March 29, 1867. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. I suppose it is mine. I will admit it. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit J-', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit lsS\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A co])y is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit L^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Questiou. Under what act or resolution were these men paid ? 

Answer. Under the same one 1 quoted, I suppose. 

Question. What evidence, if any, aside from the notes of these men, 
had you of these advances ? 

Answer. I had the affidavit of Brown hiaiself. 

Question. To the entire amount ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. He let them have it before the passage of the 
Bureau act. Mr. Brown had let these men have this money before the 
passage of this Bureau act ; and when he let them have the money, if 
their claims ha'd been settled then, it would have been perfectly legiti- 



'^7 

mate for him to collect it. But after the passage of the Bureau act he 
was prohibited. After looking the case all over, I thought it no more 
than right he should have the money ; he had the man's notes, and 
made aflidavit to it. I said then that Mr. Brown must not consider 
that as a precedent to go by. 

Question, You say, " I believe there are a few more of the same sort^ 
Avhich Mr. Brown will give you ; you may do the same by tbem.'' What 
did you mean by that expression in your letter ? 

Answer. Brown told me that he had two or three more similar notes 
against other parties. 

Question. Did he not make affidavit to those .' 

Answer. I don't know that the claims Avere ever settled. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A cop3' is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit M", there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Wl>at explanation have you to make in reference to that 
conjuinuicat'on? 

Answ^er. Smoot defended that colored man in a trial for nuirderj the 
colored man agreed to pay him a small sum ; 1 don't know what it was. 
Smoot wrote me about it; I answered him that way. When the man 
came up for payment I showed him Mr. Smoot's letter, and he would 
not recognize it at all. But before he went out of the ofllce he gave 
me part of the money, and told me I might send it to Mr. Smoot ; and 
I did so. 

Question. W^hose signature is that? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit aS^\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Under what act or resolution were those payments made ? 

Answer. I presume the one i)reviously quoted, of March 29, 18G7. 

Question. Whose signature is that ! [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and market! 
Exliibit O^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Who was ¥. E, Scovill ? 

Answer. Cashier of the branch of the Freedmen's Savings Bank at 
Beaufort, South Carolina, an authorized agent of the Bureau. 

Question. Whose signature is that? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit P'-, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What have you to say in reference to that communication i 

Answer. ■VIr. Burkholder was cashier of the Freedmen's Branch Sav- 
ings Bank at Louisville, and the actuary here. Colonel Eaton, was very 
anxious for Colonel Eunkle to make his payment every day through 
the bank, so (the men going through there) they could induce some of 
them to deposit their money, and not let them go off in the street with 
their hands full of money. I wrote him that I saw no objection to his 
giving a ticket on Mr. Burkholder every day when the men came in 
there to get their money, and he (Eunkle) could take up his tickets and 
give a check on the depositary for the whole amount. The bank was 
close by Eunkle's office, and the depositary a mile off: and it enabled 
Colonel Eunkle to have plenty of currency close to his door, and also 
induced the men to go into the bank, and sometimes they were induced 
to save their money. It was a measure of economv. 



88 

Question. In the interest of the bank, thougli. 

Answer. It was to the interest of the men, too. 

Question. Did you at this time, or subsequently, know of any offi- 
cers or agents of the Freedmen's Bureau being, either directly or indi- 
rectly, interested as stockholders, or otherwise, in this Freed men's Sav- 
ings and Trust Company ? 

Answer. The Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company has no stock- 
liolders. It is a savings bank. It is a regular savings-bank. 

(^Juestion. (Repeated.) 

Answer. The Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company is not a stock- 
company. It is a savings-bank, as before stated. Some of their cash- 
iers were agents of the Bureau, and as such were undoubtedly anxious 
to get all the money on deposij: they could, especially from these colored 
claimants who were being paid large sums of bounty. 

(Question. Do you know of any other, or did you at that time know 
of any other officers or agents of the Bureau, aside from cashiers, who 
were, as I have asked, directly or indirectly, interested in the Freed- 
men's Savings and Trust Company, or whatever may be the proper 
name of the company referred to by you ? 

Answer. Several Bureau officers in Washington, myself among the 
number, were trustees of that institution. I am trustee now. 

Question. What other officers were trustees, or interested, directly or 
indirectly, at that time, or subsequently ? 

Answer. Mr. Drew, the chief of the claims division in the Bureau, was 
a trustee. Mr. Alvord, superintendent of education in the Bureau, was 
a trustee. I don't remember particularly any others. It was all gratu- 
itous work on our part. 

Question. What sort of an organization had this trust company ? 

Answer. Chartered by act of Congress, power vested in a board of 
trustees; they had power to choose their successors. The Hon. E. 
B. French, Second Auditor, is and was a trustee. Brigadier-General 
Brice, late Paymaster-General, and Dr. Brodhead, the Second Comptrol- 
ler, and Assistant United States Treasurer Tuttle, were also trustees. 

The court then, at 2 o'clock and 30 minutes p. m., adjourned until to- 
morrow, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



TWELFTH DAY. 

CouET OF Inquiry Iioo3is, 1810 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, March 25 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin jM<;Dowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A.; 



89 

6. Col. J. J. Keviiokls, Third Cavalry, XL S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Intantry, U. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate o[ 
the court ; also. 

Brig. Gen. (). O. Howaid, TJ. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counscd. 

The minutes of tlu^ |)roce(^dings of yesterday were read and jijiproved. 

The witness, George W. Balloch, pronounced his testimony of yester- 
day to be correct as recorded. 

Tiie direct examination of George W. Balloch was resunie<l, as fol- 
lows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

(Question. Jleferring to volume 3 of the Tetter-press books shown you 
yesterday, page 3137, [shown witness,] do you recognize this as one ot 
the books I showed you yesterday ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. AVhose signature is that? 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read, ami a coi»y is attached to the record and marked 
I'jxhibit Q', tliere being no objection on tiu,^ i)art of the accused.] 

(Question. Whose signature is tliat ? [Page ~>1>7 of volume .'3 of Ictteis 
shown witness,] 

Answer. Mine. 

' [Letter read to the court, a coi)y attached to tlie record and marked 
Exhibit 11', there being no objection on the part of the accuse<l.| 

(Question. What are these l)ooks ? [Four letter-press books shown 
witness.] 

Answer. Tlie letter-press l>ooks in use in my oftici', in the i»ayment of 
bounties. 

Question. Whose signature is that? [Page 50 of volume shown 
witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read to the court, and a copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit S', there being no objection on the part of the 
accused.] 

Question. Who was Mr. James M. Tidier ? 

Answer. He was acting agent at Lebanon, Ivy., and had been an offi- 
cer of the Army. 

Question. Wiuit do you mean by an acting agent ! 

Answer. I say that he was acting agent, for a few months, at that 
place. 

Question. Plow was he acting agent, and by whom ai)poiuted ? 

Answer. I am not al)k^ to state whether he had an ai^poiiitment from 
the Commissioner or not. I think he did. 

Question. What rules and regulations were established by the Com- 
missioner, if any, in reference to advances made by the agent or acting 
agent of the Bureau to colored clainnints? 

Answer. He was not an agent of tlie Bureau, or acting agent, at the 
time he made the advance. He probably loaned the man the money 
months before. There was no specilic rule that 1 know of. No regular 
agent of the Bureau was allowed to make advances, after he was an 
agent. 

Question. How long was Mr. Tidier an agent of the Bureau or an 
acting agent ? 



90 

Answer. Only a few months, until we got the matter systematized ia 
Kentucky. 

Question. How do you know that Fidler had made any advance to 
the claimant, Alexander Brown ? 

Answer. He sent me the man's note, properly executed. As I say in 
the letter, I returned him the note. 

Question. Was it accompanied by any affidavit, to your recollection '? 

Answer. I do not remember it. It undoubtedly was, or I should 
not have looked at it at all: had nothino- to do with it. 

Question. Can you swear positively on that matter ■ 

Answer. I cannot. 

Question. Whose signature is that? 

[Page 107 of Book of letters shown witness.] 

Answer. That is mine. • 

fKead to the court, and copy attached to the record, marked Exhibit 
T\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? 

I rage 228 of volume lo of letters shown witness, being written in the 
year 1869.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court, copy attached to the record and marked Ex- 
hibit U ', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

(|)uestion. Under what resolution or act was that money paid to col- 
ored soldiers ? 

Answer. Under the act of March 29, 1807, I presunie. He lived in a 
free State. 

Question. Is that your signature? 

[Page 317 of volume 15 of book of letters shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes. 

[Letter read to the court, copy attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit V', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

(ijuestion. Under what act of Congress was that sura paid '? 

Answer. The same as before given. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? 

[Page 444 of volume 15 of book of letters shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[Letter read to the court, co))y attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit ^V\ there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Under what resohition or act was that money paid ? 

Answer. The one before quoted. Mr. Cushman was a friend of mine, 
who lived here in the city. He went on to New Bedford, and took this 
colored man with him. When the money became due, I sent the money 
to Cushman, whom I knew as well as General Howard. It was only 
about $11 any way. 

Question. Whose is that ; 

[Page 483 of volume 15 of the letter-books shown witness. | 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read to the court and a copy attached to the record, 
marked Exhibit X^, there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [Page 404 of volume 21 of letters 
shown the witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read to the court and a eoi)y attached to the record, 
marked Exhibit Y-', there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

The circumstances of that case were these: The soldier, after his en- 



91 

listment iu the Regular Army, had been tried by court-martial and a 
small fine set against him ; and they thought they could take that out 
of the bounty. The Second Comptroller said they could not do it ; it 
mnst come out of money he was earning from his present term of ser- 
vice. His bounty was due him from the volnnteers, and his present en- 
listment was in the Regular Army. 

Question. Whose signature is that '! [Page 414; of volume 25 of 
bounty-letters of 1870 was shown witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read to the court and a copy attached to the record^ 
marked Exhibit Z"', there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Under what resolution or act was that bounty paid ? 

Answer. Under the .act of March 29, 1867, 1 presume. 

Question. Whose signature is that? [Page 5G5 of volume 2.3 of 
bounty-letters of 1870 was shown to the witness.] 

Answer. Mine. 

[The letter was read to the court, a copy attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit A^; there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

This soldier was sent to the Albany penitentiary from Washington. 
Previous to his going he sent to my office an order requesting me, when 
his bounty was settled, to pay the attorney who defended him here, that 
money. I knew Mr. Pilsbury, the warden of the penitentiary at Albany , 
and sent the case to him. 

Question. Where vrere all those letters to which I have referred in the 
letter-press books sent from ? 

Answer. Sent from my office, in WavShington. 

By the Court : 

Question. While you were acting as chief disbursing officer for the 
Bureau, how many letter-press books did you keep on the subject of 
bounties payable under the act of March 20, 1867 ? 

Answer. 1 judge, from the date of the last one here, there nuist have 
been twenty-seven or twenty-eight. I judge ui) to the time I was re- 
lie^'ed in October, 1871 ; it is safe to say there were twenty-seven. 

Question. Did those books relate exclusively to the subject of pay- 
ment of bounties, under the act or resolution of March 21>, 1867 1 

Answ^er. They did. 

Question. How many pages did those books contain, on an average? 

Answer. I think they averaged about 700 pages ro a book. It is 
safe to say that they will average 700. 

Question. How^ many letters to a page ? 

Answer. Usually only one. 

Question. Being about how manv letters in all ? 

Answer. About 20,000 letters. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Referring to Exhibit B, page 18, [shown witness,] have j'oii 
ever seen any document of which that purports to be a copy ? 

Answer. I think I have. 

Question. Referring to page 17 of that exhibit, a communication 
marked to Hon. E. B. French, Second Auditor, do you know of any com- 
munication of which that purjiorts to be a copy ? 

Answer. I think 1 wrote a communication to Mr. French, of wliich 
this is a copy. 

Question. Refer to letter F, on page 31 of this exhibit. Do you know 
of any letter of which that purports to be a copy 1 



92 

Answer. Yes ; that is a letter I wrote to General Howard, I expect. 

Question. Refer to letter I, on page 33 of that exhibit. Do yon know 
who wrote that letter ? 

Answer. 1 wrote it. 

Question. Eefer to letter Q, on page 37 of that exhibit. Do you know 
who wrote that letter ? 

Answer. I wrote it. 

Question. liefer to letter No. 2, on page 48 of that exhibit. Da you 
know who wrote it? 

Answer. I wrote it. 

Qnestion. Part 2(1 of Exhibit 2 on page 3, letter of December 23; do 
you know who wrote that '? [Shown witness.] 

Answer. I wrote it. 

Question, liefer to letter B^, on page 8, part 2d of Exhibit B. 
[Shown witness.] 

Answer. I wrote that. 

Question, lieferringnow in j^art 1st of Exhibit B to page 18 and then 
referring to page 32, same exhibit, top of the page, and then to page 44, 
bottom of the page, continuing along to the top of page 45 and then to 
bottom of page 8 in part 2d of that exhibit, please state the aggre- 
gate amounts paid by yon in consequence of erroneous identiticatious of 
claimants in reference to any payment of wrong persons. 

By a member of the court : I would like to ask thejudgeadvocate, 
whether he desires the court to understand that the 39 letters which 
have been read here are all that he can find of exceptional character, 
where there was an apparent violation of the law, in the 20,000 letters 
which have been submitted in these books. As the record stands now, 
it would seem that the judge-advocate is able to find no more than these 
letters out of 20,000. 

The JuDCrE- Advocate stated : If the court please, 1 would state that I 
thought it was necessary to illustrate the mode of conducting the busi- 
ness of paying these bounties, and the witness having testified that the 
bounties were paid and the record kept in the letter-press books, I have 
hastily gathered some of these letters. Some from the three volumes 
presented this morning were found only after an examination of a few 
minutes. 1 have not had the time, as it would take a good many days, 
to go through even the books to which I have referred here, and read 
each letter, in order to ascertain the intent and purport of it. The 
illustrations that 1 have offered were simi)ly those which I obtained in 
hastily glancing through pages, ten or fifteen at a time, to ascertain 
how the business was conducted. I have no reason to sui)pose that I 
would not find a good many other letters of identical nature and tenor, 
with those introduced. I cannot say what 1 might find by a careful 
perusal of these letters if I had the time. 

[The witness then answered the fjuestion as follows:] 

Answer. If I have added up the figures correctly it is $3,074.56 paid 
from the public funds. That does not include what I have lost indi- 
vidually. 

Question. Do yon intend it to be understood that the aggregate 
amount paid by you in consequence of erroneous identification of claims 
as mentioned in the documents to which your attention was called in 
the last question, is the sum that you now^ give f 

Answer. Yes. 

(Question. Please state how you arrive at that result. 

Answer. I add from John Jones on page 18, down to and including 
Kichard Turner on page 18, and on page 8 of 2d volume take the sum 



93 

that is f;iven there, two separate tranract'ons, $1,338.50 ; and on page 
18, volume 1, $1,730.00 ; that makes .$3.07L.")0, in the aggregate. 

Question, In the case covered by the am)uut under consideration, do 
you know whether or not the real claimants were defrauded ? 

Answer. I could not tell personally. I had to judge by the evidence 
submitted to me. In two cases I paid myself. I had pretty good rea- 
son to think they were defrauded, for I got the perpetrator of the act in 
one case in the tState-prison at Charlestown, JNIass., for three years for 
doing it, and the other one I had tried in the criminal court in this dis- 
trict, and he escai)ed by the stupidity of a jury, as Judge Fisher, the 
presiding judge, said. 

Question. To what conclusion did you come with reference to the 
other cases, aside from the two that you have mentioned ? 

Answer. I have every reason to believe that the right party was de- 
frauded ; if I had not, I should not have made the second }>ayment. I 
did not do it until after full investigation and conclusive evidence. 

Question. You stated, substantially, yesterday, that when Saint Clair 
Mandeville died, at Xew Orleans, about $9,000 were found in his public 
safe, and that Mr. Sauvinet, the special agent, reported that, in his 
opinion, $17,000 were due claimants; that thereupon the Commissioner 
ordered payment as far as the $9,000 would go. Why, then, were not 
the claimants for the remaining eight thousand paid ? 

Answer. There never were but two or three applied for payment in 
those cases, who were represented to have been paid by Saint Clair Man- 
deville. We had not the money, and could not pay them, and had no 
remedy to ai)ply at the time. I think it was suggested that the claim- 
ants themselves should make application to the Court of Claims. I do 
not know whether it was ever done or not. 

(Question. How do you know that only two or three of those to whom 
the eight thousand dollars was due applied? 

Answer. Only two or three ever applied to me. 

(Question. Do you know whether they ever applied to Mr. Sauvinet, 
the agent at New Orleans ? 

Aiiswer. I don't know. He never reported any applications. 

Question. Do jou or did you know whether or not vouchers for all 
the claims, or any portion of them, had been previously filed by you in 
the Treasury, so as to relieve you from responsibility ? 

Answer. As I stated yesterday, I know that vouchers for all the 
money sent Mandeville had been filed in the Treasury by me, to offset 
that money. 

(Question. By what rule did the Commissioner assume to discriminate 
between those paid by Mr. Sauvinet and those not paid by Sauvinet, 
but who that agent reported to be, in his opinion, entitled to payment ? 

Answer. I do not understand the drift of your question. 

(Question. (Question repeated.) 

Answer. In the payment of the parties who might apply, alleging that 
they had never been paid by Saint Clair Mandeville, Mr. Sauvinet was 
directed to satisfy himself beyond a shadow of a doubt that they never 
had been paid. I do not know that the Commissioner ever adopted any 
special rule of discrimination. The Commissioner ordered suit to be 
commenced against Mandeville's sureties in the United States Court at 
New Orleans. 

Question. Do you know whether or not Mr. Sauvinet satisfied himself 
beyond the shadow of a doubt that of those applying for the payment of 
bounties due them only enough applied to exactly take up that sum ot 
$9,000 found in his safe ? 



, > 94 

Answer. I don't know. 

Qupstiou. Did you call upon Mr. Sauvinet at any time for a report in 
reference to these transactions ? 

Answer. 1 don't remember that 1 did while he was in the service as 
agent. Within the last six mouths 1 have written him twice or three 
times, and asked him to give me a list of the persons paid by him out of 
the $9,000, and he has failed to do it. 

Question. What measures, if any, did the Commissioner take to sat- 
isfy himself that claimants had never been defrauded by Saint Clair 
Mandeville!? 

Answer. He sent his inspector, General Sewall, down there to inves- 
tigate the matter. 

Question. Do you know, after ]Mr. Sanvinet had paid out the $9,000, 
whether the Commissioner in any way endeavored to satisfy himself 
that those to whom the $8,000 balance were alleged to be due, had not 
been defrauded of their money? 

Answer. I do; I know that he had Colonel Beamau, who succeeded 
Sauvinet, investigate the matter. 

Question. As the remainder of these claimants did not receive the 
$8,000 reported due them, why did you not take up the amount and 
withdraw the vouchers from the Treasury, or else cause the remainder 
to be paid, the same as the more fortunate ones! 

A member of the court asked for the court to be cleared. 

The court Mas thereupon cleared for consultation. 

Upon the doors being re-opened, the accused and his counsel being 
present. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If thecourt please, if there is no objection 
I will withdraw this last question. 

By the Judge-Advocate: 

Question. Can you tix with any certainty the amounts claimed by the 
two claimants, and whether they were substantiated by satisfactory evi- 
dence ? 

Answer. T do not remember the amounts. There was no evidence for- 
warded; simply a letter purporting to be written by each of them that 
they had not received their money. 

Question. You have said that the vouchers for payment under the 
resolution of March 29, 1867, were all made in your name, and all 
abstracts of such payment subsequently approved by General Howard. 
Do you know of any other reason for this procedure than facility in the 
settlement of the accounts at the Treasury? 

Answer. It would seem to be, under the interpretation of the law, 
that the Commissioner was to be held responsible; an I as I represented 
him, that was an additional reason why the vouchers were made in my 
name. 

Question. You have substantially Stated that Benjamin P. Eunkle, 
when a major in the Army, was agent for the payment of bounties in 
Kentucky. Under the system adopted for these payments in the Bureau, 
to whom was Major Runkle responsible for the money so received by 
him for the i)ayment of claims? 

Answer. Directly to me, through me to the Commissioner, and ulti- 
mately to the Government in case of defalcation. 

Question. On or about July G, 1871, did you have any interview with 
Major Eunkle ? If so, where and on what subject f 

Answer. I sent for him to come to Washington to straighten up his 
accounts. They got somewhat mixed up; his dates did not agree with 



95 

iniue. He came on and spent several days, and I put some of my best 
clerks at work to help liim; went all tlirou,i^h his books and through 
mine, and finally got his matters all adjusted. 

Question. Do you recollect whether he brought any public papers 
with him — any accounts or claims due or payable .' 

Answer. He brought on several bounty-vouchers that he had paid, to 
be passed to his credit. 

Question. Did he bring any others ? 

Answer. Do you mean l)ouuty-accounts ' 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Among those brought he had thiee. I helie\e, that were ie- 
ceii)ted, but he had not i^aid them. 

Question. How were they receipted? 

Answer. Eeceipted by the claimant. 

Question. In what manner ? 

Answer. By mark, if I remember right. At the time he brought 
them to me they were witnessed by one person ; I think by Mr. lieavis. 

Question. What did Major Eunkle say to you in reference to the pay- 
ment ot those bounty vouchers, if anything '. 

Answer. He said that he had not |)aid them ; that he had used the 
money to make good some wrong paynients that some of his agents had 
made. I took the vouchers from him as paid, letting him have money 
from my private funds to pay them with, upon his word as an oflictr of 
the Army, which I considered good, that the moment he returned to 
Kentucky he would go down to Evansville and pay the vouchers. On 
his return to Kentucky he started from Covington to go to Evansville ; 
got down as far us Louisville; there the order of General. Howard reliev- 
ing him overtook him; he did not go to Evansville, and did not pay the 
claims. He was tried by court-martial for it, sentenced by court-martial, 
and i)art of his sentence was subsequently remitted. In addition, his 
pay as an ofticer of the Army wasstoi)ped several mouths before he was 
cashiered, in order to make up this deficiency, as I understand. 

Question. Can you recollect the names of the bounty-claimants, if 
mentioned to you, whose names were on those vouchers ? 

Answer. I cannot. You have it in my testimony before the court- 
martial that you have before you, I presume. 

Question. Use that as a memorandum. [Testimony shown witness.] 

Answer. 1 presume those were the ones. 

Question. Mention them. 

Answer. 1 think they were the vouchers of Francis Itowley, Richard 
Suggs, and Henry Hill. 

Question. What was the aggregate amount of those vouchers as due? 

Answer. I do not remember. 1 have the impression it was $064. I 
would not like to state ])ositively. 

Question. How many persons purport to have witnessed these vouch- 
ers f 

Answer. As I said before, when they were handed to me I believe 
they were witnessed by Mr. lleavis, who lives at Evansville. Asa mat- 
ter of form I allowed Major Kunkle to sign as the other witness. 

Question. What did you then do with such vouchers ? 

Answer. At the end of July I put them into my account in the Treas- 
ury, supposing that Major Eunkle had kept his promise. I didn't know 
that he had not until afterwards. In fact I never knew it until it came 
out on the court-martial. 

Question. Was anything said at that time about the particular fund 



96 

out of which Miijor Kimkle had made provisiou, or expected to make 
l^rovisioii, for the payment ? 

Answer, I think he expected to get money on some vouchers of Gene- 
ral Eurbridge, who had been appointed to some duty in Kentucky, and 
whose traveling-voucher Eunkle had paid. Burbridge, if I recollect 
right, was appointed to do something which General Butler had to do 
witli reference to gathering up crippled soldiers and bringing them here 
to the Soldiers' Home at Hampton, the asylum. When these vouchers 
that Runkle had paid were i)resented to General Howard he declined to 
pay them, thinkingtliatGeneral Butlerought to pay them, as the service 
was done for him. \Yheu Riiukle went to General Butler he would not 
pay them. So, between the two, he was out of money. He had paid 
Burbridge the money. 

Question. Did you have any other monetary transactions with Major 
Eunkle at that time, about July G, 1871, of an official nature ? If so, 
what? 

Answer. That is 8673.21; I said about $074. Those were the three 
vouchers I took of him ; that is near the bottom of page 2, Exhibit B. 
I let him have my own private money, $331.03 mentioned in the line 
below, in order to enable him to keep his promise. 

Question. What did you h^t him have that money for ? 

Answer. In order to enable him to pay those claims and straighten 
up his accounts. 

Question. To pay the $673.24 f 

Answer. That in part, and in part to reimburse him forsome mistakes 
that his agents had made that he had to father. He was my friend : 
he was in distress. I loaned him the money the same as I would any 
other man, kirowing him to be a high-toned officer of the Army. I 
had every reason to believe he would keep his promise to me to go down 
and pay those men. The word of an officer of the Army I considered 
as good as his bond. 

Question. You said substantially yesterday, you thought Major Eunkle, 
while assistant commissioner of the Bureau in Kentucky, by virtue of 
his authority as assistant commissioner, might have appointed some 
sub-agents, but whether he did so without hrst referring the appoint- 
ment to the Commissioner for confirmation you are unable to state. 
Please state in what manner the fact came to your knowledge that there 
were such sul-agents. 

Answer. By his reporting them on his monthly report. 

Question. Did they have to travel any to find claimants ? 

Answer. Yes; they wereconstantly making journeys to different parts 
of the State. 

Question. How and by whom, then, were their traveling expenses 
paid, and on what authority ? 

Answer. They were paid by the disbursing officer for the State of 
Kentucky up to the time disbursing officers were relieved, and after 
that paid by me upon the certificate of the assistant commissioner of 
the State of Kentucky, from the funds of the Freedmen's Bureau appli- 
cable to that purpose. 

Question. Was there any other approval of these payments ? 

Answer. The approval in general by the Commissioner at the end of 
the mouth. 

Question. When General Howard relieved you as disbursing officer^ 
in 1871, how much money did you turn over to him which had not been 
l^aid claimants, and for which you had taken receipts from them and 



97 

previously filed vouchers in tbe Treasury, as paid on accompanying ab- 
stracts, approved by (leneral Howard ? 

Answer. Not any, as I remember. [See witness's subsequent cor- 
rection.] 

Question. Are you positive that you did not turn over any which 
had not been paid claimants, but for which you had taken receipts 
and filed them in the Treasury ? 

Answer. I do not remember to have turned over any such money. 

Question. Can you fix in any way, with definiteness, the fact whether 
you did or did not turn over any such money ? 

Answer. I do not think I did. 

[Question repeated.] 

Answer. I cannot. 

Question. How are accounts due claimants entered in your bounty- 
register ? 

Answer. The register was a verj^ large book, giving the name and 
company and regiment of the claimant; his last known postoflice ad- 
dress; the name of the attorney and his address; the amount of bounty ; 
the amount of attorney's fees; when the attorney's fee was paid, and 
when the balance was paid the claimant. 

Question. Are you prepared to state whether or not said bounty-reg- 
ister was complete, truthful, and reliable? 

Answer. I cannot, because those registers were kept by the clerks. 

Question. When you were relieved as disbursing officer, in October, 
1871, are you prepared to say whether or not that bounty-register was 
in perfect order, as showing exactly what claims had been paid by you 
and what had not ? 

Answer. I cannot state positively, because the work was done by 
clerks. I did not make the entries myself. 

Question. When bounty-moneys were returned to you which had not 
been called for by claimants, what notification, if any, did you or the Com- 
missioner give the Treasury Department in reference to the cancellation 
of the vouchers which had been filed of such payment *? 

Answer. 1 did not give them any. 

Question. When you were relieved as disbursing agent, in 1871, by 
General Howard, do you know whether or not the sums turned over by 
you to pay unsettled claims of colored soldiers and sailors were sufficient 
for that purpose, as shown by the books of your office '? 

Answer. I suppose very nearly so ; there have been some errors, and 
after the account was settled I had to pay the money to the Govern- 
ment. 

Question. How did this deficiency arise! 

Answer. In special cases, where I paid claims the second time, I took 
credit for it the second time, and that was disallowed. The clerical 
errors were less than $300. When 1 got the statement from the Second 
Auditor as to what the discrepancy was, I paid it, and 1 have the 
receipt here of Captain McMillan ibr $2,880.49. That was what I 
had to pay. 

Question, When was that paid ? 

Answer. It was January 28, 1873, when I got the statement from the 
Second Auditor. 

Question. Do you know anything as to the condition of the accounts 
and responsibilities of O. C. French as an agent of the Bureau when he 
was relieved ? 

Answer. At the time he was relieved, so far as I know, his accounts 
appeared to be all right. He was subsequently reported a defaulter. 
7 H 



98 

Question. State by whom, and to what amoimt, and as much as you 
know ou the subject. 

Answer. Eeportedby the War Department to me to be a defaulter for 
$6,841.54, I think French admitted to me, either directly or indirectly, 
in writing, that he had used that money. I have a letter with me saying- 
that he had made it good ; so that would imply that he had used it. 

Question. What was this sum tor in which he was reported as being a 
defaulter ? 

Answer. For bounty-claims which had been sent him to pay. 

Question. Where were the vouchers for these claims? 

Answer. I put them in the Treasury to my credit, the same as I did 
in all other cases. 

Question. Have you a list of them "! 

Answer. Yes. [Paper produced.] I have a letter that I received 
from him, as I said just now, and am perfectly willing it should go in. 

[The letter was read, and it is attached to the record, marked Exhibit 
B*, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What proceedings, if auv, were instituted in reference to 
this sum of $0,841.54 ? 

Answer. Suitwas commenced against his bondsmen, at the solicitation 
of General Howard. 

Question. What is this list that you hold in your hand f 

Answer. It is an official list, furnished me by the War Department, in 
order that I might hunt up the evidence ou which I transmitted the 
money to Major French, to use in evidence against him, as I had been 
summoned by the United States attorney to attend court at Jackson, 
Miss. The Secretary of War w'rote me a letter, inviting me to inspect 
the records of the War Department to refresh my memory, if neces- 
sary. 

Question. Are you prepared to swear to the correctness of that list? 

Answer. I can swear that it is the list I received from the War De- 
partment upon my request to be furnished with a list. 

Question. Did you make an examination with reference to testifying 
in Mississippi "? 

Answer. I did. I hunted up all the checks on which this money was 
sent to him, French. 

[List offered in evidence, and attached to the record, marked Exhibit 
C'*, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

The witness said : The minds of the court seem to be a little in doubt 
on the St. Clair Mandeville matter. I wish to make one short state- 
ment. The total amount of money I sent St. Clair Mandeville was 
$100,904.19, and for all that money he sent me proper vouchers ; sent 
the vouchers previous to my sending the money. There was a check of 
six thousand and some odd dollars, for which he sent me vouchers that 
were made out in his name, and did not reach New Orleans until after 
he died. General Mower returned that check to me, and I issued a new 
one, payable either to him or Sauvinet. 

[The court was here cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
reopened, the court, at 4 p. m,, adjourned until to-morrow, at 11 o'clock 
a. m.] 



99 



THIRTEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, 
ISTo. 1816 F Street, Washington, D. C, 

Thursday, March 26, 1871. (11 o'clock a. m.) 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 
Present — 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge advocate ; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer 
and H. D. Beems, esqs., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The witness, George W. Balloch, then said : 

If the court please, I desire to correct my testimony of yesterday in two 
respects. I wish to correct it in regard to those letters that were read 
yesterday and the day before from the letter-press books, so far as con- 
cerns payments appearing to have been made directly. And this is the 
correction : 

At the time th||bounty act of March 29, 1867, went into eflect, there 
were a large nui^er of Treasury certificates that had been issued for 
bounty due colored soldiers and sailors, held by attorneys in this city 
and other places. After the passage of this act of March 29, these cer- 
tificates were made payable through the Bureau by the Second Comp- 
troller, in order to facilitate the payment of claimants. As these cer- 
tificates were issued prior to March 29, 1867, they could be paid under 
the rules then in force. The claims mentioned in those letters may be 
of that class ; if so, there was no irregularity. 

I wish to correct my testimony, also, in regard to another point. 

When I was relieved as disbursing officer of the Bureau, in October, 
1871, I did not call in the money uncalled for at the various stations, 
the vouchers for which I had filed in the Treasury. When the Bureau 
closed, June 30, 1872, Major Brown was disbursing officer. He called 
in all this money, and the amount was $31,915.86 — turned it over to 
the War Department, with alist of the vouchers which it covered, in order 
that they might be canceled. About $9,000 of this sum pertained to 
my disbursements, the balance belonged to General Howard's, and his, 
Brown's. The whole amount is charged to me on page 55 of Exhibit B, 

It is directly implied that I was culpable for the whole $31,000 -, but 
there really was only $9,000, if there was any culpability at all. 

The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : If the court please, I have here, 
preliminary to continuing the examination of this witness, the opinion 
of the court, decided on in closed session yesterday afternoon, to be en- 
tered as of record of to-day. The following is the order : 

First. The questions recorded, as by the judge-advocate, are questions by the court, 
put by hiiu as the organ of the court conducting the examination of witnesses, for con- 
venience, and not as a public prosecutor. But as the accused is present with counsel 



100 

to especially gnaid liis interests, it is also uuderstood that the judge-advocate is to 
present i)rimarily, as fully as possible, the affirmative of the case, always within such 
limit as the court may, from time to time, direct. 

Second. The duty committed to this court is an investigation and inquiry to discover 
the truth and not a prosecution or trial. 

The Judge-Advocate theu said : If the court please, I have to in- 
vite the attention of the court, ^vitll reference to this order, to what 
would appear to be an unintentional error : The order says that " the 
questions recorded, as by the judge-advocate, are questions bj'the court, 
put by him as the organ of the court conducting the examination of wit- 
nesses, for convenience, and not as a public prosecutor." 

In point of fact, I would respectfully submit tliat the only questions 
put by the court have been such as are so noted on the record, and such 
questions as I have put have been conceived by me for the purpose of 
eliciting such evidence as I deemed to be my duty to present on behalf 
of the Govern ment, who makes the accusations against General Howard. 
In doing so, I have tried not to exclude anything brought incidentally 
under my notice which might seem advantageous to that officer. 

I desire also to invite the attention of the court, before proceeding 
witli the examination of the present witness, to the fact that the act of 
Congress approved February 13, 1874, mentions certain charges to be 
investigated. In due time I propose to show that these charges were 
sent to the House of Eepresentatives in consequence of a House resolu- 
tion requiring it. 

As the law providing for this court thus designates the allegations con- 
tained in the communications (Exhibit B) submitted to Congress by the 
honorable Secretary of ^Var, I do not see that we can look behind that 
law and say that they are not " charges." In milita^fclaw (see existing 
Army Kegulations, paragraph 2(?, page 12, and pai^raphs 1028, page 
153) as well as the eleventh section of the act approved July 17, 1862, I 
apprehend that the term " charges " has a distinct, definite meaning, 
and that charges may De reasonably considered in the light of a crim- 
inal information on which to send the accused before a general court- 
martial or else on which the President may, in his discretion, first con- 
vene a court of inquiry, under the 91st article, to fully investigate and 
inquire, the same as in a proceeding before a committing magistrate, 
whether there is sufficient probable cause to iuduce a belief that the 
accused has committed an offense for which he ought, or not, to be 
brought to trial before a com})etent tribunal, and also whether such 
alleged offenses are barred hy the statute of limitations. As the law of 
February 13, 1874, refers to certain " charges," such charges presuppose 
an accuser, which may be the Government or an individual. In the 
present instance, the honorable Secretary of War, in hmofficial capacity, 
adopting the official reports of the Adjutant-General, Inspector-General, 
and other Army officers, has presented these " charges." 

The rule in the Army has always been, that any officer might prefer 
" charges." In this case the acts of the honorable Secretary of War being 
wholly " official,''^ and in the line of his duti/, his acts become the acts of 
the Government, under the well-settled rules of judicial interpretation. 

Further than this, in contemplation of law, the United States Su- 
I)reme Court has decided that his official acts are the acts of the Presi- 
dent, ( United States vs. Eliason^ 16 Peters U. S. Eeports, 291 ; Wilcox 
vs. Jackson, 13 ibid., 498 ;) and in this case the President himself has ac- 
tually instituted this court. Another observation here suggests itself, 
and that is, that the obligations on this court to fully investigate this 
case are not any greater than if called on, as a general court-martial, to 



101 

try and determiue it on the evidence. In tliat instance a final determi- 
nation is reached, as the conrt, of necessity, would have to fully investi- 
gate, and yet, at the same time, it has wholly to depend on the judge- 
advocate and the accused to do so. 

I would also respectfully invite your attention to the proceedings of 
the court of inquiry convened under the ninety-first article of war by 
the President, and now on your table, in the case of Brigadier-General 
Dyer, of the Army. The act under which the present court is organ- 
ized, of February 13, 1874, is identical with the ninety-first article of 
war, except that in that article the court is speciiically required " to 
inquire and examine into," as well as " to fully investigate" the circum- 
stances of the case. The proceedings of that court were approved by 
the present Executive of the United States, and I refer to them partic- 
ularly as an authoritative judicial i^recedent. 

There the accusations were made by private individuals, first to Con- 
gress and then to the Executive, and they were permitted as a right to 
come into court, with their counsel, and prove their accusations. The 
accused there defended, and the court asked such additional questions 
as it deemed necessary to elicit any evidence on doubtful points. By 
this means the court maintained that impartiality and reserve so essen- 
tial when called upou to make up its opinion on the facts found, 
" without partiality, favor, or affection." 

As there are "charges" before this honorable court, I respectfully 
submit that there must necessarily be an accuser ; and as the accusa- 
tions have all been made officially, I see only the Government itself who 
can come here into court to endeavor to substantiate before you such 
"charges" or accusations. 

On the precedent of General Dyer's court, the accuser would seem 
entitled of right to be heard here, because General Howard is present, 
with four able counsel of record to defend him, and he is anxious and 
desirous, I understand, to defend himself so soon as the accuser can 
establish a prima-facie case. This is, therefore, as I understand, 
a judicial proceeding, with a complaining party, as distinguished from 
the defense. It is not a trial ; but, for aught we yet know, may be 
preliminary to one. The court says in the order that this is not a 
prosecution, nor is it so, in the restricted sense of a final judicial de- 
termination, a partisan and oppressive prescription of the distinguished 
officer who is here to meet these charges, and possibly disprove them, 
before you. I should be unwilling to lend myself to any such unjustifi- 
able proceeding. I find, however, that in legal parlance the term " prose- 
cution" has a more liberal and extended meaning. Mr. Burrill, in his 
standard Law Dictionary, defines (p. 838) a prosecution in practice to be 
"the following up or carrying on of a judicial proceeding." 

" In a stricter sense, the carrying onof a judicial proceeding in behalf 
of a complaining party, as distingushed from defense. 

" In the strictest sense, the carrying on of a criminal j)roceeding in be- 
half of the State or Government, as by indictment or information." 
(I Bl. Com., 301.) 

- As there is an accusation or charge, and an accuser in this case, I re- 
spectfully suggest the propriety of hearing such accuser according to 
established precedents. Until Ihis order of the court, I had supposed I 
Avas here representing the Government to present the evidence necessary 
to substantiate the charges in theconscientiousperformanceof my duty. 
I have based this supposition on the grounds, first, that the Govern- 
ment was the accuser ; and, second, that if the President had intended 
that I should only be the recorder or amanuensis of the court, and not 



102 

perform the orclinary and appropriate functions of a judge-advocate, lie 
would have so detailed me. in which case I would have been unable to 
appoint a reporter, or swear him to faithfully record the proceedings and 
testimony here taken, as sanctioned by the twenty-eighth section of the 
act ap])roved March 2, 1863. 

While I am an oflicer of tliis court to a limited extent, the same as 
duly-admitted counsel for the accused, and the reporter, being charged 
additionally with the authentication of its proceedings, it would appa- 
rently seem to be my duty either to act only as recorder and le tve the 
examination of witnesses to the court, as provided in the ninety-first 
article of war, which I would cheerfully do, as I have already found my- 
self in great labor and study to i)resent it understandingly, or else, in 
the absence of other counsel for the Government, to present the whole 
affirmative, according to my best judgment, for the consideration of this 
honora'ole coiirt. 

I can conceive that a middle course might be productive of confusion 
and not conduce to the results desired by me as well as by the court, 
namely, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, without 
partiality, favor, or affection. 

Another suggestion obtrudes itself, and that is, that if the judge- 
advocate's questions are merely the questions of the court, the accused 
would be })ut at disadvantage, because it is a well-settled principle of 
7nilitary law that questions by the court cannot be objected to, and in 
the presentation of the afnrnmtive in this proceeding questions might 
unavoidably be asked to which the accused might desire to make objec- 
tion and present argument thereon. 

I had not intended to speak so fully, but if the court should not, at 
any tiuie, desire me. to represent and appear for the Government here 
in the character of judge-advocate, in which I have been formally de- 
tailed, and to perform the duties recognized as inseparable from that 
office, it would seem to be due to the Government that it should be so 
informed, lo the end that it may take such action in the premises as may 
be deemed called for by the interests of the service and public justice. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, 

The witness, Geo. W. Balloch, resumed the stand. 

The Judge-Advocate said : 

Between now and the next time that you may be called ui)on to tes- 
tify, please examine these letter-press books, and be prepared to swear 
from your retained papers whether those payments therein mentioned 
are payments made under the bounty-act of March 29, 1807, or not. 

The Witness said : 

I may not be able to 5 it may be impossible. It would require me to 
get the original certificate out of the Treasury Department where Colo- 
nel Hodge paid it. 

The examination of the witness was then resumed as foUows : 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Would you or not, from your retained papers or vouchers-, 
be able to ascertain whether moneys assumed to be paid through your 
thirty-nine letters introduced here from the letter-press books were 
moneys paid specifically under tlie resolution of Congress of March 29, 
1867? 

Answer. I might be able to; I will do the best I can. 

Question. Why are you not able to state definitely whether your re- 
tained papers will show % 



103 

Answer. My retained papers do not show the date a certificate was 
issued from the Treasury Department. lu order to determine that fact, 
the certificate itself has got to be found. 

Question. Do you know anything about a certain irregular bounty- 
fund mentioned in the act of Congress a]3proved March 2d, 1^:67 ? If so, 
state, in the fullest manner, all you know about it, what was done 
with it, enumerating : 1st. The total amounts received. 2d. The amount, 
if a.uj, of increase through investment in United States bonds. 3d. 
When such investment was made and by what authority ; and, 4th, 
The total amount paid out. 

Answer. In 18G5, soon after the Freedmen's Bureau was organizsd, 
the Commissioner ascertained that .there was in the hands of two of our 
agents, who had previously been superintendents of negro affairs, pre- 
Aious to the organization of the Bureau under the department of negro 
aifairs, some money, which had been retained from colored soldiers un- 
der General Butler's order, number 90, Department of Virginia and 
North Carolina, of August 4, 1801. Tliis money was a portion of the 
bounty-money paid by same of the Northern and Middle States to those 
negro recruits which their agents recruited to fill their quotas. It was 
United States funds in no sense ; it was funds paid by the States. 
There was in the hands of Col. Orlando Brown, at that time assistant 
commissioner for the State of Virginia, $81,331.81; in the hands' of 
Capt. Horace James, assistant quartermaster of volunteers, on duty in 
North Carolina, $29,075.60. Of the sum in Captain James's hands, he 
had authorityfrom the Commissioner to expend a portion for the support 
of some indigent freedmen in an asylum in North Carolina. He did ex- 
pend $7,491.13, under authority of paragraph 2 of order No. 90, referred 
to. 

On the 19th of July, 18G5, Colonel Brown turned over to me at Eich- 
mond the amount in his hands, $84,331.81; on the 10th of August, 1865, 
Captain James turned over to me the balance in his hands, amounting 
to $21,584.17, making a total turned over to me of $105,918.98. 

The amounts on the rolls forwarded by these officers were as follows: 
(1 mean rolls of soldiers to whom it belonged.) 

Colonel Brown's rolls amounted to $83,320.81; Captain James's rolls 
amounted to $29,075.60 ; total amount of Brown's rolls and James's rolls, 
$112,396.44. 

You will see that Colonel Brown turned over a surplus of $1,013.97, 
which, taken from the $7,491.43 thatCaptain Jameshad expended, left to 
be made up, in order to make the amount enough to pay the rolls, 
$6,477.46. Of the amount turned over to me by Colonel Brown, as 
given before, $84,300 was in 7-30 bonds of the United States, which I 
took at their face-value. This, as I said, left me $6,477.46 in order to 
make enough to pay the roll. 

Now, I wish to show how I made it up. Ou July 23, 1865, I sold 
$17,700 of these bonds, in order to give me some money to work with, at 
a discount of 2J per cent. ; that left me on hand $66,000 in those bonds. 
On the first day of November I received the interest on these bonds, 
$2,430.90, and took from it the discount I had lost on the $17,700 sold 
and my expenses to Richmond and back, aud a small bill I paid at Bal- 
timore for the support of some freedmen in the county alms-house, 
leaving the balance of the interest $1,825. 

Ou the first dav of Mav, 1866, I received six months' interest, 
$2,430,90. August 1, 1866, 1 sold $66,600 at a premium of 3^, the pre- 
mium being $2,^61.50. That left $57.06 to make up the $6,477.46, and 
this I charged otf to the refugees and freedmen's fund, as it had had 



104 

advantage of the payment made by Colonel James from the fund. This 
gave me just enough to pav the rolls. The amount of the rolls to pay, 
as before stated, wns $11:3,396.44; the amount I paid was $110,707.85, 
and I turned over to General Howard $l,0li8.59. 

There is another transaction connected with these bonds. On the 
2d of March, 1867, Congress passed a law authorizing the Commissioner 
to invest a portion of this unexpended money in bonds. Under that 
authority, on the 1st day of June, 1867, I purchased $30,000 of 5-20 
bonds, at a premium of Gh- On November 1, 1867, 1 received six months' 
interest on $30,000, gold,^36, amounting to $1,224. On May 1, 186S, I 
received the interest on the same amount, $30,000, gold, at 38, $1,242. 
In the mean time, on the 1st of JuJ^, I was compelled to sell $5,000 
of the bonds, Avbich I will bring in when I come to speak of the pre- 
mium, which left me the 1st of November $25,000 to collect in- 
terest on, which I did with gold at 32, which made $990 currency'. 
The total interest collected M'hilo the bonds were in my possession, 
amounted to $3,456 in currency. Now, take the premium — 

July 1, 1868, the premium on $5,000 sold at 11 cents $550 00 

January 1, 1869, 825,000 balance was sold at a premium of 10|, 

making '.2, 768 75 

Take from that the premium that I paid when 1 bought them, June 
1, 1867, $1,950, and it leaves a balance gained on premiuai of $3,318.75. 

Now, about the 24th December, 1866, General Howard purchased, 
through me, or ordered me to purchase, a building and lot of ground on 
Seventh street, just beyond the boundary in this city, for the purpose of 
establishing a normal school for colored pupils. This purchase was 
made under authority of section 2 of the order. No. 90, heretofore referred 
to. That purchase cost $12,000. I was the trustee of this purchase. 
On that building, December 31, 1807, I received from the Freedmen's 
Bureau one year's rent, $1,200 ; April 1, 1868, I received three months' 
rent, $300; July 1, 1868, I received three mouths' rent, $300; October 
1, 1868, I received three mouths' rent, $300; December 31, 1868, I 
received three months' rent, $300, making in all for the two years it was 
rented, $2,400 that I had received as trustee. 

Early in 1869, the date I have forgotten, this building was sold to the 
Howard University on condition that they, in connection with the medi- 
cal department of their hospital, should fit it up as an asylum for idiotic 
and insane persons, who should be taken care of. It was sold at the 
price of $6,000, one-half of what it cost. 

The total that I gained in premium, interest, and rent was. . $7, 234 75 



That was disposed of as follows : 

Ee-iinbursement of bounty-fund for loss on building $6, 000 00 

Three years' insurance 93 75 

Making deed 5 00 

Acknowledging and recording deed : . 5 50 

Paid for carpenters' repairs to the building 925 00 

Gas-fitting and plumbing 154 72 

I paid for fuel for distribution to destitute freedmen the bal- 
ance , 40 78 

Making a total of 7, 224 75 

what I had received. 

The $6,000 received from the Howard University had been paid over 
to the bounty-fund. 



105 

The Accused liere said : 

May it please the court, an order of the court was eutered upou the 
record this morniuji' that the judge-advocate present the afnrmative ot 
the case, which order was based upon the fact that I am present with 
counsel. There would seem to be good reason for enlarging the present 
rule of the court in regard to rights or duties of my counsel. I there- 
fore respectfully ask that one of my counsel should be permitted to 
make objection for me in the course of proceedings, in regard to the pro- 
priety of particular questions of the judge-advocate, or the admissi- 
bility of testimony, and to present reasons for such objections. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced the decision of the court, that the request of the accused 
is granted. 

The examination was resumed. 

Question. Do you know of the issuing of that order ? [The order, No. 
90, of Maj. Gen. Butler of 1804, was here shown witness.] 

Answer. It came to me from the War Department on my application 
for a copy. 

The Judge-Advocate said : 

As explanatory of this subject, and how all this bounty-fund came 
into the possession of the witness, I will ofl'er this order in evidence. 

The order was read to the court; it is attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit DS there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused. 

Question. Have you stated the total amount of the irregular bounty- 
fund mentioned in the act of March 3, 18G7 ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. As received by you ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And the total amount i)aid out I 

Answer. I have. 

Question. In round numbers as a summary, how much was the total 
amount received by you ? 

Answer. The total amount, if I have added the figures correctly, re- 
ceived by me from everything', was $119,021.10. 

Question. And the total amount paid out, not transferred to your suc- 
cessor in office ? 

Answer. One hundred and seventeen thousand nine hundred and 
ninety-two dollars and sixty cents, which left $1,628.50 which I trans- 
ferred to the Commissioner. 

Question. What accounts were rendered by you or the Commissioner 
to the Treasury for this fund ? 

Answer. All the amounts due the soldiers as shown by the rolls. As 
fast as it was paid back to them, regular vouchers were taken from 
them, and these vouchers, with the abstracts and accounts-current, were 
sent to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, from the time I commenced 
paying back to them, which was about the 1st of January, 18GG, up to 
about May, as near as I can recollect, of 1868. The regular bounty- 
vouchers up to that time had been sent to the Third Auditor, thinking 
that they belonged there ; but about May, 1868, as before stated, it was 
found out that the regular bounty-vouchers must be audited in the 
ofitice of the Second Auditor. When the regular bounty- vouchers were 
sent up to the Second Auditor's Office from the Third Auditor's Office, 
these retained bounty- vouchers were sent also. The Third Auditor 



106 

had decided long before that these retained bounty-vouchers could not 
be put on to the books of the Treasury, as it was a private account and 
was in no sense public funds of the United States ; but yet he consented 
to let me send them there. As I said before, about May, 18G8, they 
were sent to the Second Auditor with the other bounty-accounts. The 
Second Auditor also examined them, and decided that he could not do 
anything with them on account of its not being imblic money of the 
United States. On the 2oth of May, or thereabouts, 1870, I was 
directed to take away those vouchers from the Second Auditor's Office, 
as they did not want them there. In company with one of the chiefs 
of division of the Second Auditor's Office, I visited the Second Comi^- 
troller, Dr. Brodhead, and conferred with him about it, and asked him 
what I should do, as the Third Auditor and the Second Auditor had 
refused to have anything to do with them. He examined into the law, 
and decided, himself, that they could not be carried on the books of 
the Treasury, remarking that they had no more right to audit those 
accounts than they had the private bank-account of anybody. I asked 
him what I should do. He said, "You had better continue taking the 
vouchers in the regular way, and when the Bureau winds up, the last 
section of the act directs the Commissioner what to do." 1 took the 
vouchers back to my office, and put them in the bottom of my office- 
desk. In a little while the rats got into them, and ate them somewhat 
and dirtied them considerably. I then took them out of the desk and 
laid them on top of a book-case there was in the room, and there they 
remained until I Avas relieved from duty, and when 1 was relieved I 
left them there. Tlie vouchers I took after those were withdrawn from 
the Second Auditor, I stored on a shelf that was put up over the 
safe in a corner of my office, and there I left them when I was relieved. 
I was relieved on the 11th of October, 1871, and was at that time 
actively engaged as superintendent of the streets of this city and 
Georgetown; had two thousand men or more in my employ, and all my 
books and papers and documents and records of every name and de- 
scription remained at the Bureau until 30th of June, next year, when 
the Bureau was finally wound up ; then they were taken over to my 
house — what there was left. 

Question. Who were the Second and Third Auditors at the dates of 
these transactions? 

Answer. The Hon. John Wilson was the Third Auditor, and the Hon. 
Allan Rntherford, the present incumbent; the Second Auditor was the 
present Auditor, Hon. E. B. French. 

Question. Who made this decision that you speak of, in the Third 
Auditor's Office, to the general etfect that you were not required to file 
vouchers for this irregular bounty-fund "? 

Answer. The decision was first made by John T. Vinson, now on duty 
in the Revenue Department, in the Treasury. He was then chief of the 
Freedmen's Division. With him I went to the Third Auditor, Hon. 
John Wilson, and we submitted the case to him, showed him the law 
and everything bearing on the case, and he confirmed the opinion of 
his chief of division, that they could not touch them at all, not being 
iniblic funds of the United States in any sense. 

Question. What did you then do with these vouchers that you had 
already filed there? 

Answer. I left them there. Mr. Vinson told me I could continue to 
send them there, and he could examine them, look over them as to 
their correctness, and possibly Congress might pass some law by which 
they could be examined. 



107 

Questiou. Do you know whether they still remain there, or not! 

Answer. I have stated that they were sent to the Second Auditor's. 

Question. Those that were tirst taken to the Third Auditor? 

Answer. Yes. AVhen the regular bounty-account was sent to the 
Second Auditor they sent up these. 

Question. Can you fix the date when these were sent to the Second 
Auditor ? 

Answer. I think it must have been about May, I8G85 or it was in the 
spring of 18G8. 

Question. Who made the decision in the Second Auditor's Office, to 
the effect that the vouchers for these accounts were not to be filed there, 
substantially 1 

Answer. I do not remember the name of the chief of the division. I 
think we conferred with Mr. French before going down to the Second 
Comptroller. We went down to the Second Comptroller together. If 
my memory serves me right, we had a conversation with Mr. French on 
the subject. The name of the chief of division I do not remember. 

Question. After the conference with the Second Comptroller, am I to 
understand from your testimony that you say you took all those out 
from the Second Auditor's Office? 

Answer. Took them all. I was directed to take them away. They 
didn't want them. They took my receipt for them, and thej' iiave the 
receipt on file, I presume. 

Question. For what period did those vouchers which you then took 
away cover expenditures or receipts ? 

Answer. Up to the time I took them away; May 25, 1870, I think. 

Question. From what time ? 

Answer. From the time I received them in July or August, 18G5. 

Questiou. Wlio directed that you should take those vouchers from the 
Second Auditor's Office '^ You say you were directed to take them away. 

Answer. The chief of division, alter the conference. I do not remem- 
ber who he was. 

Question. Had those vouchers, abstracts, or accounts-current any ap- 
jiroval upon them, from any source, which, you filed in the Auditor's 
Ofiice ? 

Answer. I think they had the general approval of the Commissioner. 

Question. Have you sufficient recollection to swear positively within 
your knowledge, whether or not they did have such approval ? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. What provision had you in your public office for the safe- 
keeping and proper care of public documents of any value ? 

Answer. I had large cases made in which to store vouchers and papers 
of value. 

(Question. Eetained papers ? 

Answer, detained papers. 

(Question. When you received vouchers on which you had paid moneys 
under the resolution of March 29, 1867, and prior to rendering your ac- 
counts for such expenditures to the Treasury, where did you keep such 
vouchers ? 

Answer. I kept them in a regular case made for the purpose. 

Question. Other valuable papers of the same nature for expenditures 
made by you, upon which you had not made your returns for the month 
to the Treasury; where do you keep those? 

Answer. Generally in the proper cases. If the amount was very large 
sometimes the vouchers would be kept in the safe until it was ren- 
dered — the voucher or vouchers. 



108 

Question. What opportunity had .you for having proper office-safes in 
your oflice, for the safe-keeping and custody of public papers of value 
or moneys? 

Answer. The opportunity was not very good. I think I never had 
but two safes ; one was for general purposes, simply fire-proof, for the 
cash-books ; the other was a similar one, considered burglar-proof, where 
I kept what currency I was obliged to keep on hand, and other valua- 
ble papers and documents, bonds of disbursing ofiicers, contracts, and 
all valuable papers. 

Question. Did you or not consider these vouchers for this irregular 
bonnty-fund in the nature of valuable papers, or simj^ly of retained 
papers of your office ! 

Answer. After the decision of the Second Comptroller, I considered 
them as not very valuable, as he decided that the last section of the 
act of March 2, 18G7, defined what was to be done. 

Question. Eead that last section. 

Answer. (Witness read as follows:) "And provided further, that 
any portion of the said fund which may remain unexpended when said 
Bureau shall cease to exist, shall be accounted for by the said Commis- 
sioner to the Treasury of the United States." 

The witness said, that is all there is said in the act about accounta- 
bility. 

Question. Did you have any conversation with the Commissioner in 
reference to that last section which you have just quoted, in that act ? 
If so, please state what that conversation was. 

Answer. I do not remember to have had any particular conversation 
with him on that subject. 

Question. Did he know the decisions of the Auditors and Comptrol- 
ler? Had you any communication with him on that subject? 

Answer. I do not know that he did. I think he must have known it. 
I am not certain that he did, until the Bureau wound up. 1 ain not 
prepared to state positively. 

Question. To whom did you render your account-current for those 
expenditures of this irregular fund ? 

Answer. I did not make any until the Bureau wound u}). After I was 
directed to take the vouchers away from the Second Auditor's, I rendered 
a final account to General Howard. 

Question. The monthly abstracts to which you have referred, of this 
fund, were they submitted to any one at the end of every month 1 

Answer. I presume they were submitted the same as my other ab- 
stracts. At one time in the Bureau's history 1 must have been disburs- 
ing from four or five different funds at the same time, and submitted 
the same to the Commissioner. 

Question. Have you any way of refreshing your memory as to whether 
you did or not actually submit those abstracts from month to mouth ? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. When you finally were relieved as disbursing officer of the 
Bureau, in 1871, what conversation, if any, had you with the Commis- 
sioner on the subject of accounting to him for this irregular fund ? 

Answer. He directed me, through his adjutant-general, to render an 
account of the balance in my hands — a general accouut. I did so, and 
turned over the balance of the money to him. 

Question. AVhere were your retained vouchers for these expenditures 
of that fund. 

Answer. They were kept in my office in the Freedmeu's Bureau, and 
when I took the vouchers from the Second Auditor's Office, I took them 



109 

back to the office. After a while I got pressed for room in the cases 
where the vouchers were kei)t, aud 1 took out the retained copies of 
those retained bounty-vouchers aud put them up on top of a book-case, 
with the others, so as to make room for other papers. 

Question. Where w^ere those vouchers when you ^vere relieved in 
October, 1871 ; I meau thoretained vouchers'? 

Answer. I left them with the others in the Bureau. 

Question. What did you do with your retained vouchers on the sub- 
ject of the expenditures made by you under the resolution of March 29, 
1867 ? 

Answer. I had my chief clerk, or the person who had been my chief 
clerk, to take them over to my house and pack them away in the attic. 

Question. What other description of retained vouchers did you at the 
same time take, if any"? 

Answer. 1 think I have all, or nearly all, of the retained vouchers on 
all accounts. I cannot find some of them. 

Question. Including this irregular bounty-fund ? Have you your re- 
tained vouchers of those ? 

Answer. I have no retained vouchers of the irregular bounty-fund, 
and I cannot find all of my other vouchers — retained copies. 

Question. As you were required to render an account under that act 
of March 2, 1867, to General Howard with reference to your irregular 
fund, when you were relieved from duty as chief disbursing ofticer, why 
did you not take with you your irregular bounty-fund retained vouchers 
the same as the others about which you have testified ? 

Answer. I was not required under the act to make any return. He 
is required under the act to make a return of the balance to the Treas- 
ury. That is all the requirement there is. 

Question. Do you know whether that requirement included the ac- 
counting or not for expenditures? 

Answer. I do not. It says the balance is to be accounted for. 

Question. How can the balance of any fund be accounted for without 
showing what expenditures have been made of the whole fund"? 

Answer. I rendered a report to him of the expenditures of the fund 
but it was without vouchers, as the vouchers were right there in the 
oflice. 

Question, W^hy did you take duplicate vouchers, one of each to be a 
retained voucher for expenditures under this fand ? 

Answer. I did not take duplicates, after that decision of the Second 
Comptroller. Previous to that time I took duplicates, as Idid in all other 
payments. 

Question. Why did you do so *? 

Answer. On account of his decision that it was not a public fund. 
He told me he saw no necessity of going through the formality of taking 
formal vouchers. 

Question. Why did you take duplicate vouchers ? 

Answer. Previous ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I wanted to be prepared for a settlement, if a settlement 
was ever ordered. I left those vouchers in the Bureau in order that 
they might be used if required. 

Question. Why did you not also leave your other retained vouchers 
there in the Bureau to be used if required ! 

Answer. I did leave them there until the Bureau was wound up. 
Every voucher and paper I had, remained in my office until June, 1872 



110 

over niue months. They were there without my oversight ; the ofQcer 
who succeeded me had to be constantly referring to my papers. 

Question. What officer was that? 

Answer. First General Howard; subsequently, Maj. J. M. Brown. 

Question. Do you know who was made, by that act of March 2, 18G7, 
the lawful custodian of that retained bounty-fund or trustee of the 
same ? 

Answer. The Commissioner of the Freedman's Bureau. 

Question. Then, in what capacity did you act under him in reference 
to that irregular bounty-fund after the passage of that act ! 

Answer. Acting as his agent, the same as I did in the disbursement 
of all other moneys. I was the disbursing officer, and all disbursements 
were turned over to me. That was my department. 

Question. Do you recollect any inquiries at any time being made by 
the Commissioner of you with reference to the mode of expenditure of 
this fund, or the manner of keeping the account, or the description of 
vouchers that were taken by you, in his capacity as trustee or lawful 
custodian ? 

Answer. Ido not remember any particular conversation. Heconferred 
with me about making the investment in bonds. 

Question. Subsequently at any time can you recollect any conversa- 
tion or official action on his part, with reference to that fuudf 

Answer. He used to inquire from time to time how it stood, what 
payments were being made. 

Question. What sort of a record did you keep of retained fees and 
expenses of dead or unlicensed and suspended attorneys, retained while 
paying bounties under the resolution of March 29, 1867 °? 

Answer. I testified yesterday I had a book prepared for the purpose, 
which gave the name of the attorney, the name of the soldier for whom 
the fee was retained, and the amount retained. 

Question. Where did you keep such record-book, and what did you 
do with it when relieved from Bureau duty in October, 1871"? 

Answer. I kept it in my office-desk, and I left it there. 

Question. W^hat other record, if any, did you have of these retained 
fees aside from such record-book ? 

Answer. I did not have any. 

Question. Do you recognize that signature? [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. That is mine. 

Question. To whom did you send that communication? 

Answer. To the Secretary of War. 

[The letter was read to the court, a copy attached to the record, and 
marked Exhibit E 1, there being no objection on the part of the 
accused.] 

Question. Was that the list that was inclosed ? [List shown witness,] 

Answer. Yes. 

[The list was read to the court, a copy attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit F 4, there being no objection on the part of the 
accused,] 

Question. W^here did you get that list ? 

Answer. When [ left the Bureau I took it oft' in a pocket memorandum- 
book. 

Question. Did, or not, that list contain a complete enumeration of all 
dead, suspended, and unlicensed attorneys, whose fees you had withheld 
and for which you were accountable"? 

Answer. It only embraced the list of those for whom I had the money 
in my hand. 



Ill 

Questiou. Did it contaia a list of all for whom you had the money? 
Answer. As far as I kuow. 

By the Court : 

Question. Do you kuow where those retained vouchers or the dupli- 
cates for the irregular retained bounty-fund are, for expenditures made 
by you? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Are they missing? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you made search for them at your house? 

Answer. I have looked for them everywhere. They caused me a great 
deal of trouble. They never were at my house. I kuow that by having 
searched for them. I do not know what became of them. I have my 
suspicion that they were disposed of as waste paper by some of the ser- 
vants of the Bureau, but that is simply suspicion. Among the papers 
taken to my house by my clerk was nothing pertaining to these retained 
vouchers. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. But you had made a return to General Howard? 

Answer. Yes, sir; there is a large record-book that contains a full de- 
scription of every thing. 

Question. Do you know of any cases where, since you were relieved 
from duty in the Bureau, any call has been made upon you in reference 
to transactions had when you were disbursing oflicer of the Bureau, in 
which claimants alleged that they had not received their bounty ? 

Answer. I do not remember. 

Questiou. Do you know Mrs. A. T. Spilman ? 

Answer. She is a lady living at Lowell, Ky. 

Question. Had she, at any time, any relation with the Bureau ? 

Answer. I think she was a claim-agent. 

The court here adjourned, at 3 o'clock p. m., until to-morrow morning, 
at 11 o'clock a. m. 



rOUETEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 
WasJu7igton, 1). C, Friday, March 27, 1874 — 11 a. m. 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A,; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. j 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A.j 

6. Col. J. J. Keynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Major Asa Bird^Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also, 



112 

Brig-. Geu. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, aud Geo. W. Dyer, 
esq., of conusel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read aud approved. 

The witness, George W. Balloch, pronounced his testimony to be cor- 
rect as reported. 

The examination of George W. Ballooii was then resumed, as 
follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Are you prepared to-day to say from what fund those pay- 
ments M^ere made by you, which have been indicated in the thirty-nine 
letters from the letter-press books here in evidence? 

Answer. I am not; I have not been able to hunt up the matter. 

The Judge-Advocate. Please, at a future time, be prepared to state 
as to that matter i)ositively. 

Question. When did you assume the duties of superintendent of 
streets for the city of Washington, to which you referred in your testi- 
mony yesterday I 

Answer. July 15, 1871. 

Question. What knowledge, if any, had the Commissioner of your 
assumption of those duties? 

Answer. He knew I had received the appointment and entered upon 
the duty. 

Question. Had you any conversation with him on the subject ? 

Answer. He urged me to accei)t the appointment when it was ten- 
dered me. 

Question. I desire to repeat a question of yesterday. How can the 
balance of any fund be accounted for without showing what expendi- 
tures have been made of the whole fund ? 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) We object to that question for 
the reason that though it is a proper question to ask the witness as to 
•any result at which he arrives, it is not proper to ask him for the rea- 
soning by which he arrives at that result, because the result may be 
right and the reasoning may be wrong. It is not a fact for the court. 

The Judge- Advocate. I asked the witness a question yesterday to 
which he did not give a direct answer. I desire to repeat the question 
in order to obtain a direct answer. The question was asked yesterday 
without objection on the part of the accused. 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) We had no right to object 
then. 

The Judge-Advocate. The counsel for the accused interrui^ts by 
saying that he had no right to object yesterday. I think, if the court 
please, that was an erroneous impression on the part of the accused. 
It is the very point which I presented to the attention of the court yes- 
terday, with reference to its ruling then made, but which had not been 
ofi&cially announced. The record previously shows all questions which 
I put as questions by the judge-advocate. It has been an admitted 
principle of military law, so far as my experience goes, (and I have en- 
deavored to look into all English and American works on the subject,) 
that questions by the judge-advocate are subject to legal objection by 
the accused. If now the accused comes into court aud says heretofore 
he has had no right to make objection to any question I have asked in 
presenting the affirmative of this case, I respectfully ask that the 
court will make a ruling that to any questions which have been asked 
heretofore by the judge-advocate, up to this time, the accused may 
have a right to state objections ; and that so much of the testimony as 



113 

was given under those questions where the objection is well taken may 
be considered as expunged from the record, so far as the evidence in 
this case is concerned. 

In regard to the admissibility of the question now objected to, it is in 
evidence that this witness was acting as agent or chief disbursing 
officer for the accused; he was disbursing a particular fund, about 
which there were special statutes — the statutes of 1860 and 1867. I 
asked the question to ascertain how he arrived at a result as a disburs- 
ing officer, the modus operandi., that he was not required to render an 
account of his expenditures to his successor in office in taking the fund, 
so far as General Howard might be considered his successor. I think 
it is proper for the court to know the ground of his decision that he was 
not required to render such an account. 

The Accused said : Before the court is cleared, I would like permis- 
sion to say that I understood the decision of yesterday to be that coun- 
sel could interpose the objections; and I understood prior to that the 
court desired that I should ask permission for my counsel in any instance 
in w^hich I wished counsel to speak to the court, and it would be granted 
me. With one exception, therefore, it seems to me that we have acted 
in exact accordance with the instructions of the court. 

The Judge -Advocate. If I may be allowed to reply, I would state 
that the question yesterday in regard to granting permission to counsel 
to make objections for the accused, was decided before I put the ques- 
tion which is now repeated and objected to. As a matter of fact, on the 
record it will be found that there is nothing thus far, within my knowl- 
edge, which prohibits, by the ruling of the court of yesterday morning, 
the accused from in person making any objection. 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) I find I was in error in a 
matter of fact. Our rights, however, remain the same, the question 
being repeated as a new question. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. 

Upon the doors being re-opened, the accused and his counsel being- 
recalled. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I am instructed l^y the court to ask 
what was meant by the use of the pronoun " we,'' when the counsel said 
" We had no right to object then f ' 

The Counsel for the accused said : It was only a familiar personal 
application to myself. I was speaking only of the counsel. 

The Judge-Advocate said : Then, if the court please, there would 
not seem to be a necessity for the motion I made with reference to the 
previous portion of the record. 

The Accused said : I have made my objections all along, as I con- 
sidered necessary. 

The judge-advocate then announced the decision of the court, that 
the objection of the accused to the question was not sustained. 

The examination of the witness was then resumed as follows : 

Question. (Repeated as follows :) How can the balance of any fund 
be accounted for without showing what expenditures have been made of 
the whole fund ? 

Answer. Itcan be accounted for as easily as the whole fund. If I turned 
over to General Howard §1,628.59, with the names of the soldiers to 
whom it belonged, if he made no payments from it, and, when the Bui eau 
wound up, turned that money and the names of the soldiers over to the 
Treasury with a statement, that would be a rendering of the balance. 

Question. What memorandum-book is that you hold in your hand, from 
which you have testified about this irregular bounty-fund?^ 
8 H C 



* 114 

Answer. It is a private memorauclum-book of my own. 

Question. Dmiugthe time that yon were acting- as disbursing officer 
of this fund, w^here did you keep that book ? 

Answer. Kept it in my desk ; it is not a public l»ook. It is a bank- 
book. It has my bank account in the front part of it. 

Question. Is it in the nature of a memorandum cash-book ? 

Answer. As far as that fund is concerned, it is. 

Question. Had you any other memorandum cash-book in which you 
kept account of such transactions during the time that yon were dis- 
bursing this fund!? 

Answer. I had a cash book in which I kept the transactions of the 
fund. 

Question. Please describe it particularly. 

Answer. A regular blank-book about thirteen inches long and about 
five inches wide and pasteboard cover. 

Question. How many quires "? 

Answer. I don't know as to quires. About as thick as that. [Witness 
exhibits a book.] I suppose it was about three quires. 

Question. State exactly the account that you kept in it, and answer 
the question fully. 

Answer. I suppose it was about a three quire blank-book, ruled for 
dollars and cents. 

Question. State what species of accounts were kept in it, and how 
they were kept. 

Answer. On one side was the amount of money on hand from month 
to month, and on the other side the payments that were made from time 
to time, in the form of a day-book. 

Question. Who kept this book f 

Answer. It was kept by my clerks ; no particular clerk kept it. 

Question. What distinguishing marks were upou it, if any, by which 
it would be known readily 1 

Answer. Paper pasted on the outside cover marked " Retained Bounty 
Cash-Book." 

Question. What necessity was there for you to keep an additional 
account, such as a memorandum that I have seen here in your hands ? 

Answer. I didn't keep all these interest transactions in that cash- 
book ; I simply kept an account of the soldiers that I i^aid. 

Question. After making such an account of soldiers paid in this cash- 
book was any other record made of soldiers paid? 

Answer. It was put on that record-book. [The witness indicates the 
book.] 

Question. Were all the transactions mentioned in this memorandum 
cash-book transferred to that record-book or not ? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. When retained vouchers belonging to you were taken to 
your house at the time you have testified, or subsequently on the dis- 
continuance of the Bureau, what effort did you make, if any, to ascer- 
tain what had become of your retained vouchers for the irregular bounty- 
fund? 

Answer. When the Commissioner, through his adjutant- general, called 
on me for the report relative to this fund a few days after I was relieved 
— within a week, I think, after I was relieved — no, 1 do not think he 
called on me to report that fund until the winding up of the Bureau. 
Then I hunted for the vouchers and could not find them. 

Question. State the day when you made that search. 

Answer. I searched for them whenever I rendered the account to him. 



115 

Qiiestiou. I want tbe day — about. 

Answer. I think, upon reflection, I rendered my accounts toliiin of that 
fund at the time I was relieved, leaving the vouchers there, as I before 
stated. After the accounts and records of the Bureau were transferred 
to the War Department there was inquiry made for these vouchers, 
and then I hunted for them -, that is ray impression. 

Question. After you were relieved in October, 1871, and from that time 
up to the date you spoke of on Avhich the records were transferred to the 
War Department, have you any recollection of having seen those 
vouchers? If so, where and when ? 

Answer. I don't know that I ever saw them afterward ; I was not in my 
former office more than twice, I think, afterward — after I was relieved, 
I mean. 

Question. About how much in the way of bulk of retained papers did 
you transfer to your residence at the time of the discontinuance of the 
Bureau in 1871 "I 

Answer. About an ordinary Army-wagon load. 

Question. Did you then or subsequently make any efforts to ascertain 
what retained vouchers had been received by you from the Bureau? 

Answer. I got my former chief clerk to go over to my house and arrange 
them in order, piling up each lot of vouchers by themselves. 
Question. What report did he make to you, if any, and when ? 
Answer. I don't know that he made any report to me after he got them 
arranged. We looked them over together. 

Question. Did you at that time ascertain that those vouchers were not 
there I 
Answer. I don't remember about it. 

Question. Have you or not sufficient knowledge or information to form 
a belief as to what became of those retained vouchers of the regular 
bounty fund ? 

Answer. 1 have no definite knowledge, as I stated yesterday. I havemy 
suspicion. 

Question. Has your attention ever been directed to an act of Congress of 
June 15, 18G6, providing for the settlement of accounts of certain public 
officers, in which it is declared that all moneys received for the support 
of the refugees and freedmen by any officer of the United States Army 
shall be charged against such officer on the books of the Treasury De- 
l)artment, and accounted for by him in like manner as if such moneys 
had been drawn from the Treasury of the United States ? 

Answer. I have seen the act. That was an act which the accounting 
officers of the Treasury Department had passed by Congress to enable them 
to settle the accounts of the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau, growing 
out of the receival and disbursement of the funds not drawn from the 
Treasury of the United States directly, but accruing in various ways ; 
as one of the congressional investigating committees, before whom, 
when this matter was investigated, expressed it, growing out of the 
debris of the war. A similar act was passed at the time of the war with 
Mexico to enable officers of the Army to settle accounts for money 
"captured," if I may use this expression, in Mexico. 

Question. Do you actually know that that was the entire intent of 
Congress in passing that act? 

Answer. Of course I don't know. I have my opinion from Mr. John 
T. Vinson, the chief of the freedmen's branch of the Third Auditor's 
Office. He draughted the law in order to enable him to settle those ac- 
counts, and presented it for passage to Congress. 
Question, (by the court.) As the law stands now literally ! 



116 

Answer. I do uot kuo\v whether it was ameDcleJ or not. He fur- 
nished a draught. 

Question. Do yon Ivuow of any judicial construction of that act as 

yet? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether or not the Commissioner, after the 
passage of this act of June 15, 180G, ever prescribed any rules or regu- 
lations as to your accountability for this irregular bounty-fund ; if so, 
what were they ? 

Answer. He did not prescribe any to my knowledge. This law of 
June 15, 18G6, was uot considered at all as applying to the irregular 
bounty-fund, as that was not supposed to be raised for the support of 
refugees and freedmen. It was raised under the department of negro 
affairs, long before the Bureau came into existence. 

Question. Who made such a construction of it besides this clerk in 
the Treasury Department"^ 

Answer. The Second Comptroller. 

Question. You referred yesterday, when I spDke to you about it, to 
Miss Spilman. Do you recollect any transactions with her as a Bureau 
agent with reference to the payment of a bounty-claim alleged to be 
due one Alexander Dunn 1 

Answer. I do not remember that particular transaction. Miss Annie 
T. Spilman, of Lowell, Ky., is a most estimable lady. As I said 
before, she prosecuted some claims of these colored soldiers, and she 
sent such testimonials to me of her excellent character, and also being 
guaranteed by Major Runkle, the assistant commissioner for Kentucky, 
that she paid, or I paid, a few claims through her. I do not remember 
this one in particular. 

Question. Can you refresh your memory ? [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. I think there is no doubt but what I sent the check in this 
case to her. 

Question. For how much ! 

Answer. For $297.20. " Pay Alexander Dunn, private Company B, 
Forty-fourth Kegiment United States Colored Troops." 

Question. Do you know whether you ever had any official transac- 
tions as chief disbursing officer relative to bounty, about March 10, 18G9, 
with one Mariom Hord f [Paper handed witness.] 

Answer. I do not remember i^articnlarl^^, but I presume I did by the 
documents before me. 

[The examination of this point was suspended for the present.] 

Question. On or about March 10, 1869, did you have any official trans- 
actions as chief disbursing officer in reference to the case of one Louisa 
Briggs, a bounty claimant ? 

Answer. I cannot state definitely, but presume I did from the doc- 
uments before me, presented by the judge-advocate. I think the money 
to pay this case was sent to Colonel Beman, the agent at New Orleans, 
August 24, 1869. It was alleged a few months ago that this money was 
returned by Colonel Beman to me through Mr. Drew, who used to be the 
chief of our claim division. I had no record of receiving the money ; I 
looked the matter up carefully, and could not find that I ever had re- 
ceived the money ; but to make a long siory short, and not have any 
fuss, I went down to Major McMillan and turned the money over, amount- 
ing to $106.20. 

Question. State the date you turned it over. 



117 

Answer. I cannot state, from memory liow long it is since I tnrned 
the money over to Major McMillan, but it is only a few months^ 

Question. Have you any recollection when you sent the money to pay 
that account I 

Answer. As I said before, I judge from the stamp on the case that it 
was sent August 24, 1869. 

Question, By reference to your letter-press books would you be able 
to state definitely when you sent the money? 

Answer. Perhaps so. It seems Colonel Beman sent it back October 
28, 1869, upon the order of Mr, Drew, not on my order. 

Question, When you sent Mr. Beman the money to New Orleans, the 
$106.20, did you have any vouchers covering that expenditure! 

Answer. Undoubtedly; he had forwarded me the voucher in the case 
when I sent him the money. I tiled the voucher at the Treasury as an 
offset, the same as in all other similar cases. 

Question. Do you know whether that check was ever returned to you 
or not 1 

Answer. I have stated I could not find any record of my having 
received the check. 

Question. Whose signature is that ? [A paper was shown the wit- 
ness,] 

Answer. It is mine. That is the only record — that acknowledgment 
on the back of Colonel Beman's letter, that I received it from Mr. Drew. 

Question. That is your signature? 

Answer. That is my signature. I meant to say it w^as the only record 
found. 

Question. Can you fix, with any positiveness, the date at which the 
money was tnrned over by you to Major McMillan ? 

Answer. September 15, 1873. 

[The document was offered in evidence. It was read to the court, 
attached to the record, and marked Gl, there beiug no objection on the 
part of the accused. The indorsements thereon were also made part of 
the exhibit.] 

(Question. Are you familiar with the signatures of Colonel Beman and 
Mr. Drew ? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. iSufQciently to say whether those are in your opinion gen- 
uine ? 

Answer. Those are genuine. 

Question. On or about August 15, 1870, had you any official transac- 
tions in reference to a claim of James Bobbins for bounty? [Papers 
were shown the witness.] 

Answer. I presume I did, from the documents before me, presented by 
the judge-advocate. 

Question. Please state the full circumstances, according to your recol- 
lection. 

Answer. As I remember, on the 5th day of October, 1870, I sent a 
check to pay this case to our agent at Ouancock, Virginia, Mr, P. A. 
Leatherbury. For some reason unknown to me. General Howard after- 
ward, I think it was after he became disbursing officer, ordered that 
check sent back. It was sent back, I canceled that check which was 
made in favor of the claimant and gave him. General Howard, one for 
the same amount, payable to his order as Commissioner, on the depository 
at Baltimore. 

Question. How much was the check for? 

Answer. Eighty-seven dollars and twenty-five cents. 



118 

Question. What did you do iu reference to that exj)euditure as to 
your accouuts ? 

Answer. Eeudered the voucher to the Treasury the same as in all such, 
cases in order to offset the monej^ I had sent. From the letters inside 
the wrapper I hold the man left Onancock and did not come for his check. 
As I said before, for some reason General Howard ordered the check 
returned. 

By the Court : 
Question. You took up one check iu favor of that claimant and gave 
General Howard your check for the same amount of money ? 
Answer. Yes. 

Question. Leaving the account in the Treasury just as it was ? 
Answer. As it was. 

By the JudgeAdvocate : 

Question. On what date did you give General Howard a new^ check ! 

Answer. It was about the time I was relieved. I cannot give you the 
exact date. 

Question. Do you recollect at any time having any bounty-claims in 
the names of James Ponder, Michael Oliver, and Henry Davis? 

Answer. I think I did. In the case of James Ponder, $286 sent to J. 
B. Coons, bureau agent at Xashville, Tenn., September 136, 1871. In the 
case of Michael Oliver, $202.80 sent to same agent September 22, 1869. 
I am unable to make out iu the case of Henry Davis, amounting to 
$284. 

Question. Do you know whether or not you actually sent it ? 

Answer. I am satisfied I did. 

Question. State all the circumstances with reference to those three 
accounts ; whether you took credit at the time in the Treasury for them, 
and what, if anything, subsequeutly occurred with reference to them? 

Answer. I took credit for them the same as in all other cases. On 
the 2d of October, 1871, Mr. Coons, the agent to whom these checks 
had been respectively sent, returned the amount to me, stating that he 
had discovered a ring, and that these vouchers were put in with inten- 
tion to defraud the Government. These checks went into the hands of 
my chief clerk, who was in charge of the office — that was after I had 
received my appointment as superintendent of streets, and did not visit 
the office very often — and he took up the amount regularly on the cash- 
book. He omitted to call my attention to the fact that the money had 
been returned. 

Subsequently the War Department made an inquiry of me relative to 
one of the cases, and in hunting up that I found I not only had the 
money for that, but the other two ; and I went down to Major McMillan 
and turned the money over immediately and carried down my cash- 
books to show how it occurred ; the minute I found I had the money I 
immediately turned it over. 

By the Court : 

Question. Turned over money or the original checks"? 

Answer. The original checks were drawn on the National Bank at 
Nashville, and they had been canceled. I turned over my own check 
on the Second National Bank of this city. As I said before, my atten- 
tion Avas only called to one of these cases, and in hunting up the one I 
found I had not only the money for that, but for the other two. 

Question. What was the aggregate amount of these three cases which 
you turned over to the Department f 



119 

Answer. $772.80. 

Question. Do you know when you received back the checks in these 
cases from the agent to whom they were sent? 

Answer. I have just testified I received them October 2, 1871, eight 
days before I was relieved. 

Question. Have you ever had any bounty claims to settle in the name 
of Alfred Hammond, on or about December 10, 1870 ? [Papers were 
here shown witness.] 

Answer. I judge from the documents before me that I did. [A letter- 
press book was here shown the witness.] 

It seems that on the 10th day of December, 1870, I sent $111.30 to 
C. A. Woodward, cashier of the branch of the Freedmen's Savings 
Trust Company at Mobile, Alabama, also agent of the Bureau, to pay 
this claim, the vouchers for which I had previously received. It appears 
by the papers before me that this money was never called for, and was 
finally returned to General Howard, and by him turned over to the 
War Department. The number of the check in the case of Alfred Ham- 
mond was 2657, on the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Companv, for 
$111.30. 

Question. Do you know whether you took credit at the end of that 
month in the Treasury for that sum or not on your abstracts ? 

Answer. I probably did, as in all other cases. 

Question. Do you know whose signature that is ? [A letter shown 
the witness.] 

Answer. I have no doubt it is the signature of the Adjutant-General 
of the Army. 

Question. Whose indorsement is that upon the back '? 

Answer. General Howard's. 

(The letter was read to the court, a copy attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit H^, there being no objection on the part of the accused. 
Also the indorsements.) 

(The witness identified the signature of E. D. Towiisend on the back 
of the paper.) 

Question. What cases do I hand you? [Papers handed the witness.] 

Answer. Charles Collins is the first one. 

Question. What was that case? Please state all that you know about 
it. 

Answer. It was a bounty case, under the act of March 29, 1867. 

Question. How much was it for, and what did you do in the premises? 

Answer. One hundred and sixty-eight dollars and fifty cents. It 
seems that August 24, 1808, I sent this amount to Coons, the agent of 
the Bureau at Nashville, Tenn. It seems that on the 19th July, 1870, 
Mr. Coons returned this check to me. On tlie 16th of May, 1871, he 
calls for it again, as he had found the claimant in a safe place. He was 
a convict, in the State-prison. And on the 23d of May, 1871, the 
amount was sent to him again. 

Question. How was it sent to him? 

Answer. Bv check 3516, on the First National Bank at Nashville, of 
date May 23,"'] 871. 

Question. What was the previous check which you had sent him for 
the same amount? 

Answer. Check No. 1160, on the same bank, dated August 21, 1868. 
That was the check that was returned to me. The next was the case of 
Samuel McDonald, the money to pay which, $294.96, I sent Mr. Coons 
June 13, 1870, by check No. 3160, on the First National Bank of Nash- 
•ville, dated June 13, 1870. 



120 

Question. Did you ever receive that clieck back f 

Auswer. I seem to have received it back on the 22d day of July, 1870. 
The letter is not signed by me as receiving it. It is signed by one of 
my clerks. 

Question. Acknowledging the receipt to whom? 

Answer. To Mr. Coons, for the money. 

Question. On that date, in your letter-press book, before and after 
that letter signed by Mr. Kay, are there any letters signed by yourself, 
the same date? 

Answer. I find two before and two after. 

Question. Have you any reason to doubt that that is a correct 
acknowledgment? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Do you know whether, when you sent that check in Mr. 
McDonald's case, June 13, 1870, you took credit in the Treasury, through 
abstracts approved by the Commissioner, or not? 

Answer. I undoubtedly took credit, as in all other cases. 

Question. Do you know whether you ever, subse(]uently. or the Com- 
missioner, whether he ever took up that amount as not paid, on return 
of the check ? 

Answer. I am unable to state from the evidence before me. The 
next case is the case of Morris Sells, for bounty; $55.71. Check No. 
3167 is on the First National Bank, at Nashville, Tenn., dated June IG, 
1870, for $55.71. It was forwarded to Mr. Coons, the bounty-agent at 
Nashville. 

Question. Did you ever receive the check back? 

Answer. It appears to have been returned to me by Mr. Coons, on 
the 22d of July, 1870, for the reason that Morris Sells was dead. 

Question. How was the acknowledgment made to Mr. Coons of the 
return of these two checks in the cases of Samuel McDonald and Morris 
Sells? 

Answer. Made by Mr. Eay, one of my clerks. 

Question. By letter ; of which tbe one you have been referring to, in 
the letter-press book, was an authentic copy? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Do yon know whether you took any credit at the Treasury 
for this sum of $55.71, at the date, June 16, 1870, when it is marked as 
paid ? 

Answer. I presume I did the same as in all other cases. 

Question. Upon approval of the Commissioner, on abstracts ? 

Answer. The abstracts were all approved. 

Question. This letter of May 23, in the letter-press book for 1871; 
whose is that ? 

Answer. That is signed by me. 

Question. It is a record of your sending a new check to Mr. Coons^ 
in the case of Charles Collins ? 

Answer. Yes. 

The Judge-Advocate said : 

If the court please, I will offer these two letters as simply explana- 
tory of this matter. 

[The letters were read to the court, and attached to the record,, 
marked Exhibits T and J*, respectively, there being no objection on 
the part of the accused.] 

Question. The Mr. Ray who signed that previous letter ; was he au- 
thorized to sign communications for you ? 

Answer. He was the chief of the bounty-division, and when I was 



121 

unavoidably absent be was the person who was authorized to sign let- 
ters for me. 

Question. Those checks that you have referred to in your testimony 
to-day as being on the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company, did. 
you keep a public account with that company ? 

Answer. No, sir. Whenever I had cases to pay through their cash- 
iers, who were our agents at places where I had no United. States funds, 
I used to draw my check on the Treasury of the United States here for 
the amounts I wanted, take it to the actuary of the Freedmen's Savings 
Bank here, and in exchange for it lie would give me checks on the 
branch of the company where the claim was to be paid, to facilitate the 
payment. I did not have public funds at Mobile all the time ; I did part of 
the time, w hen I was disbursing officer. The actuary drew the checks. 

Question. When you transferred in payment checks on the branch 
savings banks of the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company through 
the country in the payment of bounties, do I understand that, pre- 
viously thereto, they had received on deposit public funds to meet 
those from the United States Treasurer here, or your own checks ? 

Answer. 1 drew from the Treasury, on my own check, as before 
stated, the amount of money I wanted to make up the check or checks 
I wished to send to the agent. I took that check to the actuary of 
the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company, in Washington, and for 
that check he gave me such checks as I wanted, on a branch wherever 
I wished to send. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : If the court i)lease, I have reached 
a stage in the examination of this witness where it is impossible for me 
to proceed understandingly further, in reference to other allegations 
made in Exhibit B, without studying the matter more carefully. There 
are voluminous accounts to be gone over. I apprehend that this is not 
in the nature of an investigating committee of the House of Eepresen- 
tatives, where all sorts of questions on all sorts of subjects are put and 
answered, but that we must be governed by the common-law rules of 
evidence, and confine ourselves to the subject-matter of the allega- 
tions. I would, therefore, like to suspend the examination of the wit- 
ness until a future time, subject to cross-examination by the accused, so 
far as T have examined the witness, and to such questions as may there- 
after be propounded by the court itself, reserving my right to renew 
the inquiry at any time. If the court will glance at some of the accounts 
I have here, they will see that it is not a matter of a day, but of days, 
to study them. The Inspector-General, whose report is contained in 
Exhibit B, stated to me that it took him six weeks to familiarize him- 
self with it, in all its details, sufficient to make a report. I have had 
but a few days. 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) We would not like to 
cross-examine on the charges down to number 8, unless it is expressly 
noted on the record that the judge-advocate has finished his examina- 
tion upon them. We would not like to cross-examine upon those charges 
and then have the examination-in-chief commenced afresh upon those 
very charges. 

The President of the Court said : The court has already ruled that 
the questions by the judge-advocate are questions by the court adopted 
for convenience, and the court holds that it has the right to renew the 
examination even to the last stages of the inquiry. 

The accused, said (through his counsel :) Undoubtedly, we do not make 
the slightest objection to the form of the questions put by the court at 
any time, asking only, so far as the judge-advocate is the organ of the 



122 

court, that he shall not examine afresh upon the charges which he has 
gone over. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I have not been following that course. 
I have been pursuing the inquiry according to my own collation of the 
charges. 

The witness was then further examined as follows : 
By the Court : 

Question. Did the letters, estimated in number at about 20,000, con- 
tained in the letter-press books of bounty payments, each relate to a 
single claimant, or did any of those letters relate to more than one 
payment ? 

Answer. Many of them related to more than one payment. 

Question. About how many claimants were there whose cases are 
reported in these letter-press books? 

Answer. 44,892 paid by me. 

Question. Do you regard Runkle as indebted to you, personally, for 
the two sums of $673.24 and $1,331.03, under the headings 4 and 5, on 
page 2 of Exhibit B ? 

Question. He is indebted to me personally for the $1,331.03. For the 
six hundred and odd dollars, as I stated yesterday, I understand his 
pay was stopped before he was cashiered. 

Question. Did you charge either of these sums to the United States 
in your account of disbursements during any period of your official con- 
nection with the Freedmen's Bureau ! 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. Did General Howard ever claim credit for both or either of 
those sums ? 

Answer. It appears by this document that he claimed credit on Major 
Brown, his successor, for $073.24 in the hands of Major Runkle. I don't 
know anything about it myself. 

I would like to qualify my answer to the jirevious question. When 
General Howard relieved me, I don't know but I might have turned 
the $673.24 over to him as an asset. I do not like to testify that I did 
not. I cannot tell, I am sure, about the $1,331.03. The account 
that General Howard claims credit for $673.24 is January 3, 1873. 

Question. That does not seem to be an account rendered to the Treas- 
ury, but a report rendered to the Secretary of War. 

Answer. Yes ; as I said, I don't understand about it. 
^Question. [Book shown witness, marked Retained Bounty, Dept. I^. C. 
and Va.] Could you, from that book, make up a statement of the account, 
to which you could make affidavit ? 

Answer. I could. 

Question. You have stated that vouchers for this sum were filed with 
the Treasury, but were not acted upon, because the fund was not money 
belonging to the United States, and that the vouchers are lost. Can 
you from this book of record state the account-current, and will you 
swear that the payments were made as thus recorded ? 

Answer. I can swear that the payments were made, and I have every 
reason to believe the dates entered in the book correspond with the 
payments. The dates entered in the book were entered by a clerk under 
my direction. I have no hesitation in swearing to the payments. 

Question. Have youany knowledge, except theopinion of Sauvinet, that 
Mandeville ever committed fraud, that any proper claimants of the 
$18,000 alleged to be due to the claimants, by Sauvinet, had not been 



123 

paid, or thatttlie 89,000 fouud in Mandeville's safe after bis death was 
not his owufmoney? 

Answer. I have no knowledge, except the opinion of Sanvinet, that 
Mandeville committed fraud. I have no knowledge as to proper claim- 
ants for the $18,000 not having been paid, except tbe two or three let- 
ters I received from some of them, sayiug they had not been paid. I 
have no knowledge that the money found in Mandeville's safe after his 
death was not his money. Mrs. Alandeville always insisted that money 
was his private money ; it was on that account that the sureties of Man- 
deville resisted, and a suit was commenced. They said if they were to 
be responsible for the whole amount of tbe alleged defalcation, they were 
entitled to the money found in the safe. On tbat ground they resisted, 
as I understand, and do resist now. Mrs. Mandeville asserted most 
solemnly tbat the money was his. 

Question. Was there any provision of law requiring an account of the 
so-called irregular bounty fund to l»e rendered to auy body ; or was this 
fund ever recognized or referred to by law, except in tbat provision of 
the act of March 2, 1867, requiring tbe balance left when tbe Bureau 
was discontinued to be accounted lor to tbe Treasury 1 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Are you satisfied tbat tbe act of Congress of June 15, 1866, 
referred to to-day in your testimou}', does not cover the irregular, re- 
tained bounty-fund money? 

Answer. I am satisfied that it has nothing to do with it. 

Question. Have you tbe communication to you from tbe Secretary of 
War, inviting you to come over to the War Department to examine the 
records of the Bureau there with reference to the defalcation of O. C. 
French '? 

Answer. 1 have. 

(Eead to tbe court. A copy is attached to tbe record, and. marked 
Exbibit K^, there being no objection on tbe part of tbe accused.) 

(Also letter from the Assistant Adjutant-General, Thomas M. Vincent, 
to the witness, marked Exbibit L^, there being no objection on tbe part 
of tbe accused.) 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Can you swear that payments were always made to tbe 
rightful claimants referred to in tbe irregular bounty-fund register ? 

Answer. I could not positively. There was tbe same door open for 
fraud that there was in the payment of other bounty, and more, as this 
could be paid on powers of attorney. 

(Tbe court was then cleared for deliberation, and upon the doors 
being re-opened, the court adjourned, at 4 y>. m., until Monday', March 
30, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m.) 



124 



FIFTEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Roo3is, 
No. 1810 F Street, Washington, D. C, 

Monday^ March 30, 1874—11 o'clock a. m.. 
The court met pursuaut to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

l: General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. : 

5. Col. Geo. W\ Getty, Tliird Artillery, U. S. A. ; 
0. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalrv, U. S. A. ; 
7. Col. N. A. MUes, Fifth Infantry, tj. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge advocate; also, 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Geo. W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of Friday last, March 27, were read and approved. 

After the reading, the witness, George W. Ballocb, said: 

Mr. President, I wish to make an explanation relative to my retained 
papers being taken from the old Bureau office over to my house, with 
the permission of the court. 

There being no objection, 

The witness said: 

It was at least a month after the Bureau closed that these retained 
papers were taken over to my house, as my chief clerk, S. A. Terry, re- 
mained at the old Bureau oflice, at work for Major Brown, closing up 
matters. At the end of about a month they were done up in packages, 
of which this is one, [witness exhibited a package,] and taken over to 
the house. I purchased from the Bureau a spare case that they had on 
hand, and took that over to the house, and put it up in my office. Mr. 
Terry then w^eut to work and put all those papers in that case; all that 
it would hold; the balance were piled up in the same room, in these 
packages, just as they came from the Bureau. I do not think I exam- 
ined them at all until inquiry was made for those missing retained 
bounty vouchers. Those missing vouchers would make about two pack- 
ages like this. [Witness indicates a package, which he measured and 
found to be 12 inches long, 9 inches wide, and 6 inches high.] There 
are about twenty-live packages of that size. 

The witness then i^ronouuced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

Mr. Henry C. Harmon then appeared before the court, and, being 
duly sworn, in the i)resence of the accused, was examined, as follows: 

By the Judge- Advocate: 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and general resi- 
dence. 

Answer. Henry C. Harmon ; employed in the United States Treasury, 
in charge of the division for the investigation and prosecution of frauds. 
Second Auditor's Office; residing in the District. 

Question. How long have you been in that Department I 

Answer. About twelve years. 

Question. Do you know General Howard, here present I 



125 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do you know George W. Balloeb, the witness who has just 
left the room ? 

Answ^er. I do. 

Question. Are you familiar with their signatures? 

Answer. I am. 

Question. In the course of your ofticial pursuits in the Second Audit- 
or's OflHce, have any cases come under your notice of colored soldiers 
claiming that they had not received their bounties ! 

Answer. There have. 

Question. Have you had any such cases, where bounties were payable 
under the act of IMarch 29, 1807 ? 

Answer. Thej' are not payable under that act. They are payable to 
General Howard under that act. They are payable under the act of 
July 28, 1866, and July 22, 1861, and joint resolution of January, 1861. 

Question. Up to December 4, 1873, how many of such cases of colored 
claimants had you received in your ofticefor bounties which they alleged 
they had not received? 

Answer. We had complaints in perhaps two hundred cases; formal 
and informal complaints which came to my division. 

Question. Of such as assumed a "detiuite form" in your office, how 
many had you? 

Answer. Upward of one hundred, I should say; possibly one hundred 
and twenty-five; perhaps more. 

Question. What paper is that you hold in your hand ! 

Answer. It is a list of cases where complaints have been made to our 
office. 

Question. Where did you obtain this list from — any records? 

Answer. I cannot say; those are copies of lists from the War Depart- 
ment, compared with cases on file in my division; the cases on file have 
been compared with that list. 

Question. With what result? 

Answer. I find they are all under or have been under investigation, 
with the exception of one or two, that I think have been reported to 
my division ; but they are under examination in some other branch of 
the office, 1 presume. 

Question. Have you counted up these cases, to see how many there 
are? 

Answer. One hundred and seventy-four, I think, on that list. 

Question. For how much bounty do these claimants make claim ? 

Answer. Their claim was for whatever might be due under the laws 
of 1861 and 1866; sometimes $100, sometimes $200, and sometimes $300, 
under the joint resolution of January, 1861, with arrears of pay. 

Question. The total sum that they claimed is how much in the aggre- 
gate? 

Answer. Thirty-three thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight dol- 
lars and thirty-nine cents. 

Question. What is the character of these claims? 

Answer. Claims for bouuty and arrears of pay; bounty promised by 
acts of Congress at the time of their enlistment, and also by the law of 
July 28, 1866, granting an additional bounty of $100. 

The Judge-Advocate said: I would like to offer these lists as com- 
prising the lists referred to in this communication of the Secretary of 
War, (Exhibit B.) These are merely lists of cases in which claimants 
allege that they have not received their money. 



126 

The accused said, (througli bis counsel:) We liave uo objection to 
tbem as bsts. 

[They are attached to the record, and marked, respectively, Exhibits 
M* and N^] 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. What is the first case on Exhibit M^ ? 

The accused said, (through his counsel:) We do not object to the 
list as a list of claims that have been made, but we do not accept the 
list as any proof of the truth of the claims. We understand that it is 
simply adding so much to the exhibits upon page 8. 

[The question withdrawn by the judge-advocate.] 

Question. Have you compared these claims with any records in the 
Second Auditor's Office, so as to ascertain whether any accounts with 
reference to these individuals had been rendered to the Treasury ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. What has been the result of that examination of the rec- 
ords? 

Answer. I find the records show all those claims to have been settled, 
and the amounts to have been paid upon the Treasurer's certificates, 
representing the amounts allowed by General Balloch, generally. I did 
not examine each individual case, with a view to see who drew the 
money from the paymaster, whether General Balloch or General How- 
ard. General Balloch generally drew the money. I brought the records 
with me. 

Q. Can you point out here whether General Balloch or General 
Howard or Major Brown rendered these accounts, or whether they 
were rendered by Balloch and Major Brown through General Howard? 

Answer. I cannot. The settlement of their accounts as disbursing 
agents belongs to another branch of the Office; all I know is when I 
see the Treasurer's certificate. 

Question, You have those papers here? 

Answer. Those papers are here, the vouchers and Treasurer's certifi- 
cates, but they may not be of all the cases ; some are original and some 
copies. The complaints and applications upon which the payments 
were made are in my custody. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
ox)ened, the accused and his counsel being present, the examination 
was resumed as follows : 

Question. In these lists which you have submitted appears at the 
head of the list the name of Joseph Agiston, of the Seventy-fifth Eegi- 
ment Colored Troops. What sort of a case is that? 

Answer. An informal complaint in the case of a soldier named Au- 
gustine ; a similar name in Company I, I think. 

Question. Have you those papers here ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. [Witness produces papers.] 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) We will not require you to 
prove this case ; we have no doubt of the fact that here are claims which 
correspond with the list. 

The Judge Advocate said : 

The accused admitting the mode of doing business with the treasury, 
I will give a few illustrations that the court may see what, if any, 
foundation there was for making a complaint; of course not at all as 
l^roof of the statements made by the individual. 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) We have no objection to 
that. 



i 



127 

The Witness produced a paper and said : 

That is a letter of complaiut. It is not exactly a letter of complaint ; 
it is not the same name, nor the same company, but the same regiment. 
The letter was read to the court as follows : 

Tiieriot's FL.VXTATIOX, La Fourche Ckossixg Post-Oi fice, 

La Fourche I'arish, La. 
The Honorable Second Aitditor, 

Washington : 
Sir: On the 5th of July, 1870, I gave my discharge-paper to one Francis Sternberg, 
a notary public of Thibodeanx, for the purpose of having him collect the bounty due 
me as late private Company I, Seventy-fifth United States Colored Troops. Mr. Stern- 
berg has gone away, to parts unknown to me, and I cannot get any information in re- 
gard to my said claim. I most respectfully ask of you information as to how my case 
stands. My full jjost-otfice address is above written, and I desire letters to be addressed 
to myself. 

Yours, respectfully, 

his 
JOSEPH + AUGUSTINE, 
mark. 
Late Private Company L, Serent]i-fifth TJ. S. C. T. 
Attest : 

LOUIS BOURGEOIS. 

Question. What was done in the Second Auditor's Office in reference to 
this communication of this alleged Joseph Augustine f 

Answer. Nothing but a reply that the case of Joseph Agistan, Com- 
pany F, Seventy-tifth Colored Troops, appeared to be settled. The 
soldier's name upon the record apjiears as Agiston. 

Question. In the case of Joseph Agiston, how is the name spelled ? 
Whose claim was reported as settled I 

Answer. A g-i-s-t-o-n. 

Question. In the application how did it appear ? 

Answer. "A-g-i s-t-i-u."" 

Question. Where was the application made from ? 

Answer. Thibodeaux, in the parish of La Fourche, Louisiana. 

Question. What voucher was there on file, if any, for the payment to 
Joseph Agiston of the bounty due ? 

Answer. There is a voucher in the case of Joseph Agiston, or a re- 
ceipt for his money. 

Question. That is his voucher ? [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Paper read as follows : 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 2'2d day of September, 1868, from Bvt.-Brig- 
Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lauds, two hundred and sixty-eight dollars and one cent, in full for ar- 
rears of pay and bounty, as per Treasurj' certificate No. 432088, after deductiug at- 
tornevs' fees for collection. 
$268.01. 

his 
JOSEPH X AGISTOX, 
mark. 
Late Corporal Co. J, Sercniy Jifth Begt U. S. C. T. 
Witnesses : A. J. Baby. 

George Buttrick 
D. H. Reese. 

Question. W^hen the Second Auditor got this communication from Jo- 
seph Augustine, late private Company I, Seventy-fifth United States 
Colored Troops, what action did he take on it f [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. The letter was referred to the Adjutant-General of the 



128 

United States Army, July 31, 1872, aud returned February 12, 1873, 
with an indorsement. 
The indorsements were read as follows : 

Treasury Department, Second Auditor's Office, 
Pay and Bounty Division, 

IFashinglon, July 31, 1872. 
Respectfully referred to the Ailjntant-Geueral Tluited States Armj-. 
The claim of Joseph Agiston, Company A, Seventy-hfth United States ColoredTroops, 
was settled by Treasury certificate No. 43:^088, for $284.26 in his favor, which was paid 
to the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, June 20, 1868. 

C. F. HERRING, Acfiiig Auditor. 
By H. A. W. 

Question. Whose initials are " H. A. W ?" 

Answer. Henry A. Whalleu, chief of the bounty division. 

The second indorsement read as follows : 

War Departjient, Adjutant-General's Office, 

February 12, 1873. 

Respectfully returned to the Second Auditor, United States Treasury, for action as 
may to him seem proi>er. It appears from the records of the late Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen aud Abandoned Lands, that the proceeds of certificate No. 432088, for 
$284.26 in favor of Joseph Agiston, late corporal Company A, Seventy-fifth United States 
Colored Troops, less $16.25, attorney's fees, were paid the 22d day of September, 1868. 
(See voucher No. 2746, account of chief disbursiug officer of said Bureau, for Septem- 
ber, 1868.) The writer has been advised of this reference. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Question. What action did the Auditor take ? 

Answer. October 29, 1873, a letter was addressed to Joseph Agis- 
ton as follows : 

Sir : III answer to your communication concerning your claim for bounty, &c., I 
have to inform yon that your receipt for $2(^8, dated September 22, 1868, is on file in 
this office, and that your mark is witnessed by H. J. Baby, George Butrick, and D. H. 
Reese. 

Respectfully, 

E.B.FRENCH, J (»?(/or, 
By H. C. H. 
Joseph Agiston, 

Late Corporal Comjmny A, Serenty-Fifth U)>lted States Colored Troops, 

TlierioVs Plantation, La Fourvhe Crossing Post-Office, La Fourche Parish, La. 

Question. Who is " H. C. H.," who signed for Mr. French? 

Answer. Myself. 

Question. Referring to the case of Henry C. Allen, what species of 
complaint have you on file in the Second Auditor's Oflice with refer- 
ence to that case ! 

Answer. The party first made affidavit in that case, and complained 
under oath. 

Question. Is that the document f [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. That is a certified copy. That is one of the cases purporting 
to have been witnessed by one J. T. McLean, who stands proven, I think, 
by a court-martial at Louisville, Ky., to be connected with some parties 
in fraudulent transactions. The receipt appears to have been witnessed 
by him, and the party claims that McLean came to her and got the re- 
ceipt for the money. We i:>laced the case at once, upon receipt of that 
affidavit, in the hands of the War Department, for transmittal to the 
Attorney-General for civil action or criminal action. 

Question. Against whom ? 



129 

Answer. Parties within tlie jurisdiction of the United States attorney 
at Louisville. 

[The affidavit of Rose Eichey, mother of Henry C. Allen, was read to 
the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked Exhibit O^. 
Offered to illustrate the character of the claim, and not as evidence of 
the truth of such claim.] 

The judge-advocate read the following : 

Received, Washington, D. C, this 23d day of Mai'ch, 1871, from Brevet Brigadier- 
General George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bnrean Refugees, Freednien and 
Abandoned Lands, one hundred and nine doUars and eighty-nine cents, in full for 
arrears of pay and bounty, as per Treasury certificate No. 456130, after deducting attor- 
ney's fees for collection. 

§109.89.1 her 

ROSE + RICHIE, 

mark. 

Mother of Henry C. Alien, deceased, 
Laic rrivate Company A, 115</i Begiment United Slates Colored Troops. 
Witnesses : 

J. T. E. McLean, United States Commissioner. 
T. E. GuEEN, Clerk Commissioner. 

Also a letter of James Hazard was read to the court. A copy is at- 
tached to the record and marked Exhibit P^. Offered as illustrative 
in same manner as previous exhibit. 

Question. What is this ? [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. Certified copy of original voucher of General Balloch, which 
was sent to the Attorney-General by the War Department. 

[A copy is attached to the record, and marked Exhibit Q\ there being 
no objection on the part of accused.] 

By the Court : 

Question. Who was McLean ? 

Answer. 1 believe he. was United States commissioner, and also claim- 
agent, at that time. He has been suspended since then. 

Question. In consequence of that affair, or other affairs'? 

Answer. I should say other matters. I do not recollect that he was 
suspended for rascality in this particular case. I think our record will 
show other cases. 

Question. But he had a right then to sign himself " commissioner f 

Answer. At that time I presume he did. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What action was taken in this complaint of Eose Eichey, 
that she had not received bounty-money due her son ? 

Answer. The original settlement and voucher of General Balloch and 
affidavit were transmitted to the Adjutant-General for transmission to 
the Attorney-General, under an arrangement made in the early part of 
1873, that papers of this character should be transmitted to the Attorney- 
General for prosecution through the civil courts. They are transmitted 
gimply by our office to the Adjutant-General. 

By the Court : 

Question. He transmits to the Attorney-General for pursuit in the 
civil courts ? 

Answer. Yes ', for civil or criminal prosecution, as the case will war- 
rant. 

Question. McLean would be criminal in that case, would he not! 

Answer. We judge him so here. The investigation at Louisville 
might implicate others. 

9h c 



130 

Question. No suits have been commeuced against General Ballocli 
for that? 

Answer. Xo, sir; I will siuiply state in this and similar cases, where 
the evidence is very strong, that the parties have not received all of 
their money. After some mvestigation by the office we concluded to 
transmit tbe papers, under arrangements made between General Vin- 
cent or the Secretary of War, perhaps, and the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, to the War Department for transmission to tbe Attorney-General. 
He would send them to the different United States attorneys having 
jurisdiction, for criminal action in cases where we w'ere not barred b}' 
statute, and for such civil processes as would be deemed proper. 
Question. Civil action is never barred ? 

Answer. Civil action is never barred. 

Question. Did that money belong to the United States or to Mrs. 
Eichey 'i 

Answer. That moneys belonged to Mrs. Eichey; after the conversion 
of the Treasury certificate into funds, it was held in trust by the Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for her. That is the way I regard 
it under the law of 18G7. 

Question. To whom is the debt due? 

Answer. That is a question I am hardly able to answer. It involves 
a nice legal point. That question has been raised in some of the courts — 
who should bring an action, the United States direct, or the party in in- 
terest in the name of the United States? 

Question. Was it not her money the moment she signed the receipt ? 

Answer. It was her money, unquestionably; her right to that money 
was undisputed, but it had not been reduced to possession. 

Question. Does the signing of that receipt constitute McLean, who 
witnessed it, and to whom she gave it, her agent to collect it 1 

Answer. I should not regard that he was constituted the agent by her 
signing that receipt. He was not an officer of the Government at that 
time — not a disbursing officer of the Government. He was a claim- 
agent. To the best of my knowledge, I am satisfied the facts are that 
he was employed by one Eunkle, who was the real disbursing agent at 
Louisville, Ky., employed by Eunkle to get receipts of parties for their 
bounty-money, and bring them to him afterward. He and some others 
were actually intrusted with funds by Eunkle to pay parties, and some- 
times he paid, and sometimes he paid a portion, and sometimes he didn't 
pay anything. I presume those are really the facts. 

Question. So the payment by the Commissioner became a payment by 
Balloch ; and Eunkle turned it over to his agent, McLean, and he gave 
it to the parties who had receipted for it? 

Answer. That appears to be the fact in this case. 

Question. But the money appears to have been remitted to Eunkle! 

Answer. It w as generally the case that Balloch transmitted the funds 
to him. There are cases showing that Mr. Eunkle himself witnessed 
the receipts for parties, and the evidence is very strong that he kept 
the money himself. 

Question. At all events, this case has gone into the Attorney-Gen- 
eral's office with a view to suing somebody? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Not Mr. Balloch ? 

Answer. Not Mr. Balloch. 

Question, Has this developed since the court-martial of Eunkle, oris 
this an earlier case ? 

Answer. A later case. It was placed in the hands of the War De- 
partment in 1873, and Eunkle was tried in 1872, 



131 

Qaestiou. Turn to the case of Aarou Bess, Company C, Fourteenth 
Heavy Artillery. What sort of a complaint is that "} 

[Witness produces papers.] 

Answer. The original claim in this case was presented by Andrew 
Coates, iigent claim division, Freedmeu's Bureau, at New Berne, N. C, 
1870. Claim settled February, 1871, for $200. July 4, 1873, this letter 
was received. [Witness produces letter.] • 

Question. What did he allege in the letter on the subject? 

Answer. He alleges that he never has received the money, and that 
fraud has been practiced upon him. This letter is addressed to James 
IMcMillan, chief disbursing ofticer of the War Department. 

Question. No affidavit ? 

Answer. No affidavit in that case ; but copies of the original papers 
were sent to the War Department. There are a few cases in North 
Carolina where charges have been submitted. 

By the Couet : 

Question. Who was supposed to embezzle that money — the claim- 
agent 2 

Answer. 1 formed no opinion in this case. 

Question. Cases of that kind, generally — you say there were several 
cases somewhat like that — where the mouev appears never to have been 
paid at all ? 

Answer. We have always found the subagent of the Bureau, or the 
claim-agent. 

Question. Who appeared to have been the guilty parties '? 

Answer. We have always found it so far where it has been embez- 
zled. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. By whom did that claim of Aaron Bess purport to have 
been paid ? 

Answer. The receipt was from Gen. O. O. Howard, United States 
Commissioner, of date January 23, 1872. That was received from Gene- 
ral Howard as per Treasury certificate 576,867. I presume Coates made 
the payment, if any payment was made. There is no distinct allega- 
tion that the claim had been filed by this same party, A. J. Coates, as 
agent for the claims division of the Bureau. He prosecuted the claim 
as the agent of the party. 

Question. And also agent of the Bureau ? 

Answer. He indorsed the claim : " Andrew J. Coates, agent, claims 
division. Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, New 
Berne, N. C." William P. Drew was made the attorney in the body of 
the claim. 

Question. Do you know who William P. Drew was ? 

Answer. He was connected with the Freedmeu's Bureau : chief of 
some division. 

Question. In the case of William J. Brown, state what description of 
complaint has been made in that. 

(Witness produces papers.) 

Answer. The original papers are in the possession of the Attorney- 
General's Office. That certificate will show the nature of the case. 

The following letter was read to the court : 

Washingtox, March 5, 1874. 
Sir: I inclose lierewitb the origiiical certificate and voucher of the late disbursing 
officer of the Freedmeu's Bureau, and a copy of the letter in the case of William J. 



132 

Brown, Company C, Fourth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, and have to re- 
commend that action be taken with a view to the recovery of the money and the puu- 
ishmeut of the parties who have fraudulently obtained and withheld it. 
Very respectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, Auditor. 
By H. C. H. 
To ihe Adjutant-General U. S. A., Washinfjton, B. C. 

Question. What was tlie grouud-work of this claim on tlie part of the 
claimaut, Brown ? 

Answer. Here is an abstract of the facts, in brief, which we generally 
place in cases. In all white cases we have these abstracts, and in col- 
ored, cases we make them as fast as we can. This abstract will show 
the facts as far as they came to my knowledge. 

By the Court : 

Question. Do I understand you make the same disposition of black 
cases as of white? 

Answer. The white cases are never transmitted to the Adjutant- 
General. AVe keep a brief of the facts in each case, that can be referred 
to. 

The abstract was read to the court, as follows : 

William J. Brown, late first sergeant Company C, Fourth United States Colored Heavy 
Artillery, enrolled 8th June, 186'^ ; discharged with company February 25, 186(5. Settled 
March 23, 1871 ; by certificate 578,480, for $135.08, $100 additional bounty, and $35.08 
arrears of i)ay, in favor of the discharged soldier, whose residence was given on the 
application as Shelbyville, Ky. Claimant signs his own name. Attorney, Wm. Fowler, 
brevet major, &c.. Bureau Kefiigees, Freedineu and Abandoned Lands. The applica- 
tion was filed August 3, 1870. The certificate was paid to General Howard 3d May, 
1871. General Balloch has taken credit for the payment of the amount of the above cer- 
tificate by his voucher No. 127, dated 9th May, 1871. The voucher is signed William 
(his + mark) J. Brown, the witnesses being S. G. Burbridge and Robert Gray. June 
3, 1872, the soldier writes from Hickman, Ky., to the Commissioner of Pensions that he 
employed B. P. Runkle, of Covington, Ky., to collect his bounty ; that the books at the 
Freedmen's Bureau, Louisville, Ky., show that " the bounty was paid by the Gov- 
ernment in a check witnessed by one Mr. Gray and S. G. Burbridge ;" and that he is 
ready to testify that he never received one cent of it. He states that he has written 
two letters to Runkle without getting any reply ; gives his post-office address as Shel- 
byville, Ky. The signature to the letter corresponds with that ou the ajiplicatiou. 
The signature on General Balloch's vouchers is probably a forgery. 

Question. Is General Balloch's voucher witnessed by Burbridge ! 

Answer. It is. It is witnessed by S. G. Burbridge and Eobert Gray. 

Question. That is General Burbridge, is it notf 

Answer. Yes, sir. There are a great many complaints against him. 

Question. He is now a claim-agent in this city, is he not ? 

Answer. I am unable to answer, but have heard that he was con- 
nected with Eunkle as a claim-agent here and at Louisville, and with 
other parties. 

Question. On what ground do you make the last remark in that in- 
dorsement that the signatures on Balloch's return are probably forg- 
eries 1 

Answer. I judge from the fact that the soldier was able to write, and 
wrote his uame, and that name was written differently upon General 
Balloch's voucher. I never make that allegation myself nor my clerks, 
except ill error, unless we have grounds for saying it. 

Question. What ground had you in this case ? 

Answer. From the fact that the soldier, who signed his own name, 
could write his name to the application, and, if a different handwriting 
appeared ou the receipt, the conclusion would be that a forgery had 
been committed somewhere ; I will not say whether upon the voucher 



133 

or upon the application. lu this case the abstract shows the party 
signed his name; he signed the appUcatiou — this application for re- 
dress, I mean. 

Question. There are three sig-nutures — the original application, the 
receipt, and the aj)plication for redress. 

Answer. That fact does not appear. 

Question. There wonUl be three signatures ? 

Answer. The fact does appear in the abstract. The original papers 
having been sent to the War J)epartmeut, it is impossible to determine 
that fact before the court here — not having the original papers. 

Question. There were three signatures to compare ? 

Answer. Certainly. If I found the signatures to the original appli- 
cation and complaint to correspond, and tbat the signature on the receipt 
was different, I would conclude there was a forgery. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. The case of George W. Henderson — what species of case 
is that ? 

Answer. A claim for $120 allowed in February, 1871, to the soldier 
himself— a discharged soldier. Fraud was alleged in that case. The 
papers were prepared and transmitted to the War Department, at the 
request of the Secretary of War. The original papers were used in the 
trial of Colonel Runkle. 

Question. Who was George W. Henderson ? 

Answer. A soldier of Company F, Sixtieth Uiuted States Colored 
Troops. 

Question. What was the complaint in this case ? 

Answer. The complaint was, by second application, for bounty-money, 
under oath, in which he alleges Colonel Eunkle had got his name to the 
receipts, and never i)aid him a cent. I think, also, the case was investi- 
gated by General Baird or an agent of his. The papers were called for 
by the War Department, and were transmitted to the Secretary of War. 

Question. How much was the claim for V 

Answer. One hundred and twenty-six-lfollars. That was the amount 
allowed bv the Second Auditor's Office. The amount that purports to 
have been paid to the soldier was $ 110— $126, less $16 fees. On July 0, 
1871, it purports to have been paid. 

Question. In whose name is the receipt taken 1 

Answer. George W. Henderson. 

Question. From whom had he acknowledged having received the 
money '? 

Answer. General George W. Balloch. 

Question. Where does he acknowledge to have received it t 

Answer. At Washington, I). C; the name of the place is printed in 
the paper. 

By the Court : 

Question. What is the usual course of proceeding in the case of white 
soldiers when they have been defrauded on their final statement ; what 
is done with their papers ; where are they sent for prosecution i 

Answer. When they are paid by the Paymaster-General or by the 
Second Auditor? 

Question. By anybody "? 

Answer. It is almost impossible to ascertain whether the soldier has 
been paid or not if he has receipted upon the pay-rolls as being paid by 
the paymaster ; we take the paymaster's returns generally as conclusive. 



134 

You can liardly impeach the paymaster's returns, and we bave but very 
few cases of that class. In the case of discharged soldiers who claim 
payments by the Second Auditor's Office, we have the party complain 
under oath, then we trace the money by the Treasury certificate to the 
paymaster who paid by his check if it was i^aid in that way. Major 
Hodge, for instance, paid by check, payable to the order of the soldier, 
and transmitted it to the soldier's agent, or claim-agent. The checks 
were usually sent to the soldier in the care of the claim-agent that he 
employed. We got that check from the sub-treasury in ISTew York to 
ascertain the true character of the indorsements upon it. If we find 
that the soldier's name upon that check is the same as in his applica- 
tion and on the pay-rolls, we notify him that his check appears to be 
properly indorsed ; that the signature corresponds Mi th that upon the 
pay-roll and upon his original application to the office, and therefore a 
forgery is not committed, and if he has not received his money he must 
look to his claim-agent, and we write at the same time to the claim- 
agent to account to the Second Auditor's Office and to advise the Sec- 
ond Auditor's Office, in cases of that kind, what disposition he has 
made of the money, and we compel him, if we can, to account properly 
for the money he has received on the checks. If he does not, to the satis- 
faction of the Auditor's Office, it debars him from practice either in our 
office or any other offices. If, on the other hand, we find the signatures 
unlike, we come to the conclusion that a forgery has been committed, 
and if we find the claim-agent's name and indorsement on that check, 
and that the handwriting is that of the claim -agent, which we gener- 
ally can tell, being familiar with the handwriting of most of the claim- 
agents, we would not call on him for the money, but put the matter in 
the hands of the United States attorney at once to prosecute the case 
vigorously, not only to regain the money but to punish the offender. 

Question. AVho is responsible for money that is lost to the claimant 
in that way? 

Answer. That is a question that never has been determined. 

Question. There must have been a good deal lost in that way? 

Answer. Yes. The rule of the Second Auditor's Office has been in 
cases of that kind, if checks were issued by an officer of the pay depart- 
ment, drawn on the assistant treasurer or Treasurer of the United States, 
and the soldiers complain to our office, we interpose with a view of se- 
curing the money to the soldier and punishing the claim-agent, if he be 
the guilty party, not only to secure his punishment but for the protec- 
tion of the Government against future similar practices. 

Question. Are the receipts for the payment of this money taken before 
the money is sent to the claimant? 

Answer. I will state from my knowledge that, so far as I have exam- 
ined the papers of the Paymaster-General's Office, applicafions were 
made and receipts in blank signed by the soldier before his check was 
issued; receipts giving his post-otfice address the same as in his appli- 
cation before his check was issued by the paymaster. 

Question. When a check is sent to the claim-agent, what authority 
has the Treasury for sending that money to the claim-agent? Has he 
a power of attorney to collect, or is he a person designated to prosecute ? 

Answer. No power to collect; simply power embodied in the api)lica- 
tion to prosecute his claim to a settlement. 

Question. And then the check is to the order not of the claim-agent 
l)ut of the claimant? 

Answer. Generally all communications, Treasury checks, or certifi- 



135 

• 

cates are sent in the care of his agent and to his agent, but the check 
is drawn to the order of the claimant and not of the claim-agent. 

Question. Does not the Treasury consider it has paid the money when 
the check is sent to the claim-agent, and beyond that the claimant has 
to take his own risks? 

Answer. The Second Auditor and the Second Comptroller have re- 
garded it in that light, as applying to Treasury certiticates ; they con- 
sider that the payment has been made and that they are relieved. 

Question. And the Treasury is discharged? 

Answer. Yes; the Treasury is discharged. 

Question. Does not the law require disbursing officers to pay in checks 
when possible, except in this Freedmen's Bureau law? 

Answer. There is a recent law to that effect, but at the time these 
large payments of bounty were made there was no law of that kind, I 
think. 

Question. The old law is that an officer has to pay in the kind of 
funds he gets from the Treasury; and then, when the national banks 
were established through the country, he was to pay in checks when- 
ever possible, and only allowed to keep a small amount of currency on 
hand, to pay small amounts of $20? 

Answer. I think that was the law governing disbursing agents, but 
there has been a law x)assed since, regulating the issue of rertiticates 
from the Second Auditor's Office, and that they shall also be paid by 
checks. 

Question. In all cases where payments of bounty have been made to 
white soldiers, have the checks invariably been made in favor of the 
claimant and to his order? 

Answer. There may have been an exception to that rule that the 
checks shall be drawn payable to the claimant. There is one class of 
cases where the check or certificate may be drawn payable to the order 
of the agent; in case, I think, of non-residence, the party residing in 
Europe ; for instance, a non-resident of the United States. 

Question. In case any of these checks are lost and that the claimant 
does not receive them when paid to the agent for him, who is responsi- 
ble for the loss of the money ? 

Answer. The Government has no right to draw a check payable to 
the order of a claim-agent; if a check has been drawn to the order of 
the claimant, a soldier, and lost, non -converted, he is entitled to a du- 
plicate check ; but if the check has been drawn to the order of the sol- 
dier claimant, sent to his agent, and that agent forges the name of the 
soldier and gets the monej", and converts it to his own use, the soldier's 
remedy would be against the indorsers and assistant treasurer at New 
York or against the United States, or through the Court of Claims. 

In the case of an agent acting for a man who was a non-resident, I 
do not think there is any law authorizing the Government to draw the 
check payable to the order of the claim-agent in such cases or to the 
attorney. I think it is done by a regulation for the convenience of the 
parties. For instance, the check would be converted in this country to 
a bill of exchange. 

Question. In cases where it is lost? 

Answer. You ask for my opinion ? 

Question. I want the custom ? 

Answer. I do not know that there is any custom ; I never heard of a 
case. 

Question. What number of claims of a similar nature to those pre- 
sented to-day have been made to your office from white soldiers ? 

Answer. Since the beginning of payments ? 



136 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I should tbink there had been over 20,000 ; between 20,000 
and 30,000, both formal and informal, since the Second Auditor com- 
menced i^aying, which have been received at his office. 

Question. What number of complaints do you think you have received 
from the blacks ? 

Answer. Between perhaps 200 and 300 since April, 1SG7, and perhaj)s 
100 or 200 before, which have come to the knowledge of mv division. 

Question. 20,000 whites and 300 blacks f 

Answer. I think I place the number small in both instances. I am 
satisfied that notices of wrong and fraud, both formal and informal, 
in cases of all white settlements by the Second Auditor, may have, since 
he commenced to pay, even exceeded 30,000, and in colored eases would 
exceed 500 ; the 500 have come to the knowledge of my division since it 
has been established in the office. 

Question. That applies to that time when these ]iayments were made 
to the Auditor's office, and before the passage of the law of 18G7, and 
also since, for safety, it was transferred to the Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau / 

Answer. Yes. I will state further, that complaints are continually 
being received in both classes of cases, and now more frequently in the 
colored cases. That is accounted for from the fact that the settlements 
were earlier in the white cases, and a longer time has elapsed since their 
settlements. 

Question. Mr. French testified here that this lawof 1SG7 originated in 
a consultation among the officers of the Treasury in consequence of a 
gi'eat number of complaints of frauds in the payment of these negro 
bounties when they were settled through his office ; and a law was 
passed in order to provide an additional remedy, and the complaints 
since that time have been fewer than they had been before. You say 
about 100 complaints before, and about 300 since ? 

Answer. I judge the testimony of Mr. French to have been correct on 
that point. I am in a division that has charge of cases after they are 
referred to me. INIr. French has a clerk in his room. I was there my- 
self before the formation of this division of the office, and did nothing- 
but answer letters, and these complaints that Mr. French has reference 
to were by letter answered by me, and also by his other private secre- 
taries, one or two that he had in his room. They did not all come to my 
knowledge. 

Question. The numbers that you testified to, did they come to your 
division since its organization ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; the colored cases did. 

Question. When was it organized ? 

Answer. Organized in 1865. There were then but very few cases at 
that time under investigation. In 1807 it was organized properly and a 
room taken for that division. 

Question. You spoke of three modes of payments : one was payment 
by the paymaster; another payment by the Commissioner, through his 
agent; and another payment through the Second Auditor's Office ? 

Answer. There never has been a payment proper by the Second Au- 
ditor. I will explain what I mean. We paid by Treasury certificate, 
drawn to the order of the claimant ; that is, in ordinary settlements the 
certificate is precisely like the certificates you have seen here, drawn 
payable to General Howard, or drawn payable to the order of the claim- 
ant, and that certificate is sent to the claimant, or to the claim-agent — 
the certificate itself. That certificate would be taken by the claimant 
to the nearest paymaster, and on receipt of the certificate the paymas- 



137 

ter would baud the party the luouey. That is the third kind of paN'- 
ment. 

Question. Was that the system in operation just before the passage of 
the law of March 29, 18G7, and was that preceded by the payment to tbe 
paymaster here ! 

Answer. That system was in practice entirely before that law of 1867, 
both for white and colored cases. That was tbe only system in the Sec- 
ond Auditor's Office before that, if I recollect aright. Payments were 
made to colored soldiers who resided in free States in 18G1, and at time 
of payment, upon a Treasury certificate, drawn to his order, and sent to 
him the same as to the white soldier. All white soldiers were paid by 
Treasury certificates. Within the last two years, perhaps the last two 
or three years, these Treasury certificates have been paid in this city by 
the Paymaster-General, and a check drawn to the order of the soldier 
and that check sent to him. 

Question. That was for white soldiers ! 

Answer. Wbite soldiers. 

Question. And for colored soldiers it has been paid since that time to 
the Commissioner of Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. Yes ; until it was transferred to the War Department. 

Question. Now to whom is your certificate made payable ? 

Answer. I tbink the Secretary of War ; I am not certain about that. 

Question. Who do you substitute for the Commissioner in the certifi- 
cates f Formerly they were payable to the order of the Commissioner ; 
now they are payable to the order of some person. Who is that person ? 

Answer. My impression is the Secretary of War ; I do not audit the 
accounts. 

The Judge- Advocate said : At the request of the accused 1 have 
here the general court-martial order promulgating the proceedings in 
Major Runkle's case, the seventh specification of which refers directly 
to this matter of George W. Henderson. I will offer the order in evi- 
dence. 

Attached to the recoixl and marked Exhibit R^. 

By the Judge- ADVOCATE : 

Question. In this promulgation of the proceedings in the trial of 
Major Ruukle is mentioned the name of George W. Henderson. Is that 
the case on which Major Runkle was tried ? Was that one of the cases 
you have referred to here ? 

Answer. It was. 

The court then adjourned, at 3 o'clock and 20 minutes, until to-mor- 
row at 11 a. m. 



SIXTEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Booms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, March 31, 1871—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. A. 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. 



138 

3. Brig-. Geii. j\r. C. Meigs, Quarteraiaster-Geueral, U. S. A. 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. 

5. Col." George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. 

6. Col. J. J. Eevnolcls, Third Cavalry, IJ. S. A. 

7. Col. K. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

After the reading, 

The witness, Mr. H. C. Harmon, said : 

I was asked yesterday who was substituted for the Commissioner in the 
certificates, (the certificates having formerly been made ])ayable to the 
Commissioner,) and I answered that my impression was it was the Sec- 
retary of War. I have siuce been informed that it is not the Secretary 
of War. 

The thirty thousand cases of white-soldier claimants did not come to 
my division entirely ; there were several divisions that received and 
answered letters, and sometimes the clerk in charge of the pay and 
bounty division would dispose of those cases entirely. I being in the 
Auditor's room, a great many of the complaints or letters passed through 
my hands. There was no investigation in the early part of the war. I 
took charge in 1SG7. Before that I had been to work upon some cases 
investigating, and had assistants with me from 1805. 

The witness then i^ronounced his testimony of yesterday to be cor- 
rect as recorded. 

The witness was then further examined, as follows : 
By the Court : 

Question. From 1865 to 1867 you had assistants engaged in» this 
business, and in 1867 they constituted you a branch division in the 
Treasury ! 

Answer. I will state now what knowledge I did have of this large 
number of cases. In my early connection with the ofilice I was first 
examiner of claims ; subsequently I was transferred to the Second 
Auditor's private room, in 1863 or 1864, to assist in answering letters 
and inquiries; and while so engaged was requested to take charge of 
certain cases in which fraudulent practices had been alleged, at that 
time the Auditor not being able to give his personal attention to things 
of that kind. These cases continued to increase until about 1865, when 
I was placed in the room adjoining that of the Auditor, and given an 
assistant. They still continued to increase from 1865 to 1867, and up to 
the present time, until I required the services of a second, third, fourth, 
fifth, and sixth assistant, which I have now ; but in the early settle- 
ments, in the years 1863 to 1866, complaints by letter were answered 
from the Second Auditor's room, and also by the chief of the pay and 
bounty division, and sometimes by the heads of examining divisions 
in the office ; but there was no regular system of investigation at that 
time, and there was no record kept from which we could determine the 
correct number of complaints coming to the office during those years. 

Question. From 1866 to the present moment you have a correct rec- 
ord ? 

Answer. From 1866 or 1867 to the present time there has been a sys- 
tem and a record kept under my supervision. 



139 

Question. Can you tell, approximately, how many cases of white 
chiimants tbere were altogether, and how many of colored claimants, in 
■which frauds or non-payments were alleged, formal and informal ? 

Answer. Coming to the knowledge of the oflice or my own knowl- 
edge ? 

Question. Coming to your knowledge in any way; coming to the 
Second Auditor's Office ? 

Answer. Between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of white soldiers, aud be- 
tween 2,000 and 3,000 in cases of colored soldiers ; that is approximately. 

Question. How many whites were entitled to be claimants for bounty 
and arrears ? 

Answer. It would be impossible for me to tell, or any one, without 
examining between 000,000 and 700,000 settlements in our office, and a 
large number in the Paymaster-General's Office. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 
Question. What case is that you hold in your hand ? 
Answer. The case of Peter Wright, Company K, Eighth United 
States Colored Heavy Artillery. 
Question. Is it one of the cases on this list, (Exhibit N^ ?) 
Answer. It is. 

Question. What description of case is it? 
Answer. A settlement for $228.55, pay aud bounty. 
Question. What does that case illustrate ? 

Answer. The facts of this case appear in a brief written statement. 
The statement was read as follows: 

Peter Wright, late private Company K, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artil- 
lery. Enrolled 24th June, 1864 ; died 22d June, 1865. 

The case was settled 8th October, 1870, by certilicate No. 570273, for $100 additional 
bounty and $;128.55 arrears of pay, in favor of Mary Jane Wright, of Uuioutown, Uuiou 
County, Kentucky, the widow of deceased. Her application was tiled 24th August, 
1866, hfj John P. Hall, of Morganiield, Union County, Ky., who was succeeded as attor- 
ney by Silas Rhoades, of Sliawneetowu, 111. 

The certificate was paid to Gen. O. O. Howard by Major Hodge, on 31st December, 
1870. 

Gen. Geo. Balloch's voucher No. 420, for the payment of the amount of the certiKcate, 
less §11.50 fees, was liled in this office on 14th of April, 1871. It is dated 18th March, 

her 
1871, and signed "Mary + J. Wright"; S. G. Burbridge and "Thomes Somes" being the 

mark, 
attesting witnesses. 

October 11, 1871, Eliza G. McCoughtry, of Raleigh, Union County, Ky., in answ'cr to 
a letter of inquiry concerning this and other cases, was informed by General Balloch 
that in this case payment was made through Major Runkle, on 18th March, 1871. 

November 11, 1871, Eliza G. McCoughtry made affidavit that Mary Jane Wright, the 
widow, not being able to go to the post-office, had authorized her (affiant) to attend to 
her aliairs, and that no money or draft had been received from Col. Runkle " since the 
time claimed by him," or at any other time, aud that " the claim of payment is entirely 
false." 

Wm. Reavis, of Evansville, Indiana, has stated in a letter to John P. Hall, dated 
12th .January, 1872, that he was employed by Runkle to procure the signature of 
claimants, residing in Union County, to vonclaers, and was instructed to give them 
assurances that the money would be forwarded in the course of two months ; that 
when he afterward ascertained that Runkle had not forwarded the moneys he advised 
Runkle verbally and by letter to do so, and that Runkle did promise to send money 
for this purpose to him by the 1st of January, 1872, but failed to do so. 

Johu P. Hall has written concerning this class of cases to Hon. Edward Crossland, 
M. C. 

Question. Do you knew whether or not that is the case referred to in 
the 13th specification of Exhibit W, in the case of MaJ. B. P. Kunklef 

.Answer. I presume it to be the case from the fact that the name of 
the soldier in the service is the same, and the fact that the original cer- 



140 

tificate aucl Mr. Bulloch's voucher have been prepared for the use of the 
Attorney-General's Office. 

[The 13th specification of Exhibit 11^ was here read to the court.] 

Question. In auditing- accounts and in the investigation of claims 
where the claimants allege they have not received their money, in your 
division, what do you call a case of "definite form," or a "formal" 
case? 

Answer. Where complaints are made under oath, or the case con- 
nected with others that have been investigated and found to be of the 
same class as other cases that have been investigated and fraud or 
forgery ascertained, and the evidence such as to warrant the conclu- 
sion that a party did not receipt for the money or receive the money, 
from the fact that the claimant may have died before the pretended 
payment, or an alibi proven at the time of payment — such a case as 
would reasonably appear under the oath of the parties to be one that 
should be placed in the hands of the prosecuting officer, for a further 
investigation and prosecution. 

Question. Suppose you receive a communication from a party claim- 
ing that he has not received his bounty-money; you refer to the origi- 
nal application on file in the Auditor's Office, and ascertain that the sig- 
nature to the original application and the siguature to the claim are 
indentical, but that the receipt for the money has been made by a 
different signature or by a mark : do you, or not, call that a formal case 
for investigation by the Attorney-General's Department ? 

Answer. We generally do, particularly in cases where the fraud is 
charged upon some agent who has been proven guilty of fraud in other 
cases. 

Question. Suppose, as another case, you receive a comi^laint from a 
party, or his attorney, that he has not been paid his bounty, and you 
find a receipt on file, witnessed ; but by reference to other records you 
find that the check which had been sent to make that paymenj, had 
been subsequently recalled by the officer who had taken credit at the 
Treasury, would you, or not, call that a formal case to be sent to the 
Attorney-General ? 

Answer. I should regard that a formal case, to be sent for prosecution 
for the crime, if action is not barred. 

Question. To what fact, if any, do you ascribe the greater number of 
complaints from white soldiers, to your division, than from blacks, of 
wrongs or frauds in the payment of bounty and the arrears of pay ? 

Answer. From the fact that there are a larger number of settlements 
of cases of white soldiers, both by the Second Auditor's Office and the 
Paymaster-General's Office. 

Question. Do you know w^hat proportion the settlements have been 
with reference to colored bounties since July 30, 1872, the date of the 
discontinuance of the Ereedmen's Bureau, as compared with the time 
the Bureau was in existence f 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Can you state definitely, or with any degree of definiteness, 
how many white claims have come to your division for investigation 
since March, 18G7 ? 

Answer. I should think, approximately, in the neighborhood of two 
thousand cases, both formal and informal. 

Question. When the Second Auditor has settled an account in his 
office, and that account has been allowed by the Second Comptroller, 
and fraud is afterward discovered in the payment sufficient in the 
judgment of the Second Auditor to make a formal case, what, if any- 



141 

tbino^, is doue with reference to the account of the officer who has 
credited himself with the amount of such payment ? 

Answer. I am not familiar with the action taken by the clerks in 
charge of the division in which disbursing officers' accounts are settled, 
and, therefore, am unable to answer the question intelligently. I will 
state that I have had cases where charges have been made ag^ainst dis- 
bursing agents on account of false payments. 

Cross-examination by the accused through his counsel: 

Question. In the question Just put to you, and which you have 
answered us to a matter of practice, you have stated substantially that 
where an officer has sent out a check and has filed the receipted voucher 
for the same amount, or taken credit therefor, and the check has been 
returned, and there has been a corresponding charge against him, that 
that is a formal case which ought to be sent to the prosecuting officer 
for prosecution ! 

Answer. A formal charge against an agent? I do not understand 
that there had been a formal charge. 

Question. I thought there was a misunderstanding of the question in 
your mind. Here is an instance of a check sent out and a check sent 
back ; of a credit for the check and a charge back for the check. 

Answer. I do not understand that that is the language in the question. 

Question. In such a case would there be any formal or informal case 
to be sent to the prosecuting officer for attention "? 

Answer. Where the disbursing agent pays by a check, transmits his 
check to a claimant, and takes credit accordingly in his account- cur- 
rent, and the check is not received by the claimant but is returned to 
the disbursing officer, and the disbursing officer charges himself with the 
amount and notifies the accounting officers, and that fact comes to my 
knowledge, it is not a case for i)rosecution. 

Question. I wish you would take up some more of these cases named 
in the* abstract and show the manner of doing this business. You have 
been inquired of in regard to the first case on the list. Will you find 
the second case ; that of Livian Adams ? 

[Witness produces papers.] Give a brief statement of the papers 
you find in the jacket. 

Answer. A settlement for $129.G0 in the case of Livian Adams, Com- 
pany I, Thirty-sixth United States Colored Troops, settled by Treasury 
certificate 298G1C. The Treasury certificate purports to have been paid 
by General O. O. Howard, by Paymaster Hodge, June 11, 18G7, and that 
.$110.10 appears to have been paid to Livian Adams on the 22d of Au- 
gust, 1SG7, as is shown bv General George W. Balloch's voucher of that 
date, Xo. 82i. 

Question. If those are the only papers there, how came that case to 
your division '? 

Answer. On the 29th of August, 1872, a letter was addressed to Major- 
General Howard, it appears to be here, and was referred to the Second 
Auditor's Office from the Adjutant-General's Office, February 12, 1873. 
A letter of complaint, I presume. 

Question. Was that letter answered ? 

Answer. On the 29th of October, 1873, Livian Adams was written to 
as follows: 

Treasury Department, Secoxd Auditor's Office, 

Octobvv 29, 1873. 

Sir: Your conimuiiication to General Howard of August 27, 1672, was referred to 
this office by the Adjutaut-General February 12, 1873. 

la auswer I have to iuforiu you that your receipt for §116.10, dated August 22, 1867, 



142 

is on file iu this office, and that your sif^jnature is witnessed by George W. Stone and 
James Parker; the latter by mark. If the money was fraudulently obtained it will 
be necessary for you to disprove the genuineness of the signature. 
Eespectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, Auditor, 
By H. C. A. 
LiviAX Adams, 

Late First Hergeant Company I, Thirtij-sixth U. S. Colored Troops, Norfolk, Va. 

Qnestiou. Any auswer to that communication ? 

Answer. There appears to have been no answer received. 

Question. On an inspection of tlie papers, if you look, does it not ap- 
pear that the only thing irregular about the papers is that this appli- 
cant, when he made his application, signed by a cross and afterward 
wrote his name '? 

Answer. It appears that the claimant signed by a cross-mark in the 
application. 

Question. Now, look at the receipt and look at the letter of complaint. 

Answer. The receipt is signed in a fair handwriting. 

(Question. Look at the letter of complaint. 

.Answer. That is also signed in a fair handwriting. 

Question. Do the two signatures appear to be the same ? 

Answer. They resemble each other. 

Question. I understand that this is one of the informal cases ; that is, 
properly an informal case — I mean in the classification you have al- 
ready made between formal and informal ? 

Answer. It appears to have been treated as such. 

Question. What proportion of iuformal cases are there among the 174: 
which are brought in here! 

Answer. I am unable to state. 

Question. About one-quarter, one-half, or one-tenth "? 

Answer. I should judge about one-half; perhaps more, possibly less. 
I wish to state further, as an answer, there have been over one hundred 
cases transmitted to the Secretary of War of what was regarded as 
formal cases. Not all of that number made out of the 174 cases which 
I brought with me. 

Question. Will you find the case of Joseph Alexander, sergeant Com- 
pany F, One hundred and fifteenth liegiment ? 

Answer. It does not appear to be here. 

Question. The list is marked with blue pencil opposite the name, and 
then in black-pencil " money received.'" [List shown witness at his re- 
quest.] 

Answer. The case does not appear to be here, from the fact that the 
claimant received his money. The case has either been investigated 
and sent to the general files by me, or is in my general files. I pre- 
sume it has been disposed of, from the fact that the party has received 
the money. 

Question. Then I misunderstood you to say that those files agreed w ith 
the lists which have been submitted by you ? 

Answer. In name ? 

Question. In number. 

Answer. In number and name. I did so state. 

Question. Then you were in error; there are some exceptions ? 

Answer. I was in error as to one or two, possibly three, cases I did 
not bring with me. I was in error to that extent. 

Question. Embraced in those 174? 

xYnswer. Yes. I should have said, and my recollection is I did say,. 



143 

possibly with one or two exceptions, which were in some other branch 
of the office under examination. 

Question. Will .yon tnrn to the case of Isaac Adams, private Com- 
pany B, One hnndredth Colored Intantry ? [The witness produces the 
paper.] 

Question. Is that another of the informal cases ? 

Answer. It appers to be taken by itself. There is a reference in the 
case to another case. 

Question. Now the case of John Butler, private Company C, Eighty- 
fourth Colored Infantry 1 [The witness produces the paper.] 

Question. Does that appear also to be an informal case ? 

Answer. The papers have not been transmitted to the Secretary of 
War in this case. 

Question. Has the claimant pressed his inquiry ! 

Answer. Xo answer has been received since the letter addressed to 
the soldiers' attorney, October 30, 1873. 

Question. I notice a mark on those jackets of papers sent to the 
Adjutant-General, for the Attorney-General, and for the Department 
of Justice, at various dates during the summer of 1873. Can you state 
definitely whether the arrangement you spoke of yesterday was made 
between the Seijretary of War and the Secretary of the Treasury to 
have the papers in the cases of these colored claims sent to the Depart- 
ment of Justice through the Adjutant-General ? I wish to know about 
the time that arrangement was made. 

Answer. Since informing myself upon that subject, I find that a letter 
was written by myself on the 10th of April, 1873, to the Secretary of 
War, signed by the Second Auditor, and answered by him on the 13th of 
April, 1873, to the effect that these cases could all be sent to him, and 
by him thus transmitted to the Attorney-General. 

Question. Has a similar application been made b}^ the Secretary of 
War with regard to claims of white soldiers? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Has it to the claims of colored soldiers who were paid pre- 
vious to the passage of the act of March 29, 1807 ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Has it been applied to cases that have been paid since the 
Bureau was discontinued"^ I mean under the supervision of General 
Howard — after that discontinuance. 

Answer. If I understand you, you mean any cases of payment since 
the Bureau was transferred to the War Department ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Have not; no occasion yet, to my knowledge. 

Question. If those cases had remained in your ofiice would they have 
been investigated in the same manner as all the. other cases have been 
investigated and are being investigated ? 

Answer. I cannot say as to that. 

Question. Is there any reason why they should not have been inves- 
tigated like other cases in your office ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Give the reason. 

Answer. Because the manner of payment of colored claimants was 
different from the payment of other claimants. 

Question. How would the manner of payment preclude the investiga- 
tion as to the fact of payment '? 

Answer. It would not, as to the fact of payment. 



144 

Question. Is not that tbe principal fact to be determined in the inves- 
tigation of this class of cases ? 

Answer. It is one of the facts. It is the principal fact to be deter- 
mined by the investigation. 

Question. Please explain, then, how it is that you could not have 
investigated these cases in your division. 

Answer. The officers of the War Department who assisted in the pay- 
ment, under General Howard, some of them being in the Southern 
States, and the machinery different in that payment somewhat from 
other classes of payments — we have relied largely upon those Army 
officers to assist us in arriving at certain facts, and from the fact that 
the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau was made an officer of 
the Government, under the act of March 30, 18G7, my division did not 
feel like putting these cases at once into the hands of a United States 
district attorney for prosecution, as in cases of fraud by a claim-agent 
or parties not so nearly related to the United States Government ; that 
was tbe general reason why. 

Question. Your answer, then, is that it was not convenient for you to 
make the investigation 1 

Answer. Not so convenient. 

Question. But there was no reason, other than the inconvenience, 
why you could not have made it ? 

Answer. We had not made arrangements with the Secretary of War 
or the Secretary of the Treasury, nor with the Attorney-General in this 
class of cases, for any particular method of investigation and prosecu- 
tions, as I said before, from the fact that General Howard had been an 
officer of the Government and disbursed this money, the money that he 
had ; and from the fact that we did not have the persons to work 
through in the Southern States, generally, that we did have in the 
ISTorthern States, who had become somewhat familiar with the investiga- 
tions in the Second Auditor's Office. 

Question. What persons do you mean ? 

Answer. United States deputy marshals, internal-revenue officers, and 
members of what is known as the secret-service division of the United 
States. 

Question. Did you investigate any of these cases prior to turning 
them over to the Adjutant-General for transmission to the Department 
of Justice ? 

Answer, W^hich cases ? 

Question. Those colored cases. 

Answer. The one hundred and seventy-four, or any colored cases ? 

Question. Any colored cases. 

Answer. We had investigated somewhat the colored cases. 

Question. In the same manner that you had the white cases ? 

Answer. The object was to arrive at certain facts. 

Question. That is all of that branch of inquiry. I wish to inquire, 
about this matter of complaints of non-payments of dues, whether you 
know the fact that, aside from complaints made to the Second Auditor, 
great numbers of complaints had been made to the Paymaster-General 
of the same character ? 

Answer. I cannot answer of my own knowledge, never having been 
in the Paymaster-GeneraFs Office as an employ^. From my knowledge 
of the business of that Office, as turned over to the office of the Second 
Auditor, I conclude that complaints may have frequently been made 
to the Paymaster-General in cases settled b}^ him. 



145 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Referring back to that case in the illustration brought out 
on the cross-examination of Livian Adams, did yon have before you the 
original receipt put into the Treasury by General Balloch ? [Paper 
handed witness.] 

Answer. 1 did. 

Question. How is that receipt witnessed ? 

Answer. Witnessed by George W. Stone and Thomas Parker, " his 4- 
mark." The " George W. Stone" written in a good hand. 

Question. There seems to be no witness to the witness who signed 
with his mark. What was the date of the application in that case, for 
the bounty, and what the date of the receipt ? 

Answer. The application was executed on the 18th of October, 18G6, 
and the receipt is dated on the 22d of August, 18G7, and the date of 
the letter of complaint is August 29, 1872. 

Question. The receipt that you have read from is the original rend- 
ered to the Treasury by General Balloch ? 

Answer. That is the original receipt. 

The Accused said, (through his counsel :) The reason of offering 
this testimony is, if the court please, that the Second Auditor assumed 
it to be a fraud, that the man had learned to write his name in the 
course of a year, the time which elapsed between the application and 
the receipt. 

Question. Where does the claimant purport to have received his 
money as by the receipt of August 22, 1867 ! 

Answer. Washington, D. C. They are usually dated at Washington. 

The examination closed. 

The witness then retired. 

Edward 0. Beman then appeared before the court, and, being duly 
sworn in the presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and general resi- 
dence ? 

Answer. My name is Edgar C. Beman ; I am a clerk in the Second 
Auditor's Office, and reside in Washington. 

Question. Have you ever been in the military service of the Govern- 
ment ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. With what rank did you leave it? 

Answer. Rank of captain and brevet lieutenant-colonel, Subsistence 
Department. 

Question. In the year 1809 were you in the military service ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Q. When had you been mustered out ? 

Answer. September 1, 1868. 

Question. What was your occupation in the year 1869 ? 

Answer. I was disbursing otiicer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands for Louisiana. 

Question. Between what periods did you act in that capacity ? 

Answer. From about the 20th of October, 1867, until the last of 
March, 1872. 

Question. When did you assume the duty of disbursing officer and 
agent for the Freedmen's Bureau for Louisiana? 

Answer. About the 1st of March, 1868. 

10 H C 



14S 

Questiou. Where was your office located ? 

Answer. It was on Julia street, between Saint Charles and Caronde- 
let streets, New Orleans. 

Question. Whom did you succeed ? 

Answer. Oapt. W. B. Armstrong. 

Question. Do you know who his predecessor had been in the office ? 

Answer. No, sir; I do not. 

Question. Did you know Mr. Sauvinet ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Questiou. Had he been in the Bureau at any time '? 

Answer. I am under the impression he had nev^er been an officer of 
the Bureau, but I don't know. I believe he was an agent for paying 
bounties, but whether he had ever been a regular Bureau officer I 
could not tell. 

Question. Where did he have his office ? 

Answer. He was cashier of the Freedmen's Bank. 

Question. Did you kuow Saint Clair Mandeville ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. From whom did you receive funds while you were acting 
as disbursing officer in New Orleans ? 

Answer. General Balloch. 

Question. Did you, while acting as disbursing officer of the Bureau, 
have any complaints with reference to the payment of bounties of 
colored soldiers? 

Answer. Only as to the method of payment. 

Question. In reference to payments generally ? 

Answer. No, sir; I do not know that I ever did. 

Questiou. What is that paper you hold in your hand ? [Handing 
paper to witness.] 

Answer. Letter written by me to Gen. George W. Balloch, May 18, 
1869. 

Question. Was it an official letter ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What was the puport of that letter? 

Answer. That these parties had applied to me for payment, and by 
referring to the books of the office the record showed they had been 
paid by C. S. Sauvinet. 

Questiou. What action, if any, was taken upon that communication 
by any superior officer ! 

Answer. I don't know whether any action was taken or not. I know 
I simply reported cases like this as they were brought before me. 

[Offered and read in evidence. A copy attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit S*, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What is that document that you hold in your hand 1 
[Handing paper to witness.] 

Answer. It is an official letter written by me May 21, 1860, in purport 
like the letter just read. 

[Read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit T*, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What action, if any, was taken by i^roper superior in refer- 
ence to that letter I 

Answer. I don't know of any action at all taken. 

Question. There appears to be an indorsement on this communication 
of yours of May 24, 1869. Do you kuow by whom it is made'? 

Answer. No, sir; I do not. 



147 * 

Question. Are you familiar with the signature of George W. Ballocli ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I am. 

Question. Do you know whether or not that is bis signature ? 

Answer. I do not thinlc it is. I ain not positive about that. 

The Judge-Advocate said : I will otfer the letter in evidence, leav- 
ing the indorsements to be identified in some other mode. 

Question. Do you know what, if any, action was talven by your proper 
superior in reference to the report that you made in that communica- 
tion ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. What document do 3'ou hold in your hand f [Handing paper 
to witness.] 

Answer. It is a letter of similar purport to the other just read. 

[Offered and read in evidence and copy attached to the record, marked 
Exhibit U^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. What, if any, action was taken by your proper superior 
relative to tliat matter 1 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. What document is that which you hold in your hand ? 
[Handing paper to witness.] 

Answer. This letter is of similar purport as the others ; it refers to 
matters in connection with payments which I believe to be erroneous. 

[Read and offered in evidence : a copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit V^, there being no objection on the part c»f the accused.] 

Question. Is that the communication you returned with the indorse- 
ment to which you refer? [Exhibit T^ handed witness.] 

Answer. I presume it is the one; undoubtedly. 

[The indorsement on Exhibit T^ offered and read in evidence, there 
being no objection on the iiart of the accused.] The indorsement is as 
follows : 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Aijandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Uisbursing Officer, 

Washington, May 28, 1869. 
Eospectfnlly returned, with the information that, on the 22fl of September last, the 
receipted vouchers of Washington Glover, late of A Company, Fifty-first United States 
Colored Troops, were received at this office, and on the same day the amount due him 
was remitted to Mr. Sauvinet by my check No. 101, on the United States assistant treas- 
urer at New Orleans, drawn for the sum of eleven thousand four hundred and seventeen 
dollars and eleven cents, ($11,407.11,) in pavment of tifty-two (52) cases colored bounty. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen'l. Chief Disbursing Officer, 
By E. 

Question. Do you know whether or not those documents which have 
just been read were ever received by General Howard or General Bal- 
loch? 

Answer. I don't know positively. 

Question. Do you know whether any action was ever taken upon the 
reports that you made there with reference to the allegations of non- 
payment ? 

Answer. I don't know. 

Question. What rules and regulations were prescribed by the Com- 
missioner for your guidance in the matter of tacilitating discovery and 
identification and payments to colored claimants under the act of March 
29, 1867 % 

Answer. I don't know that there were any specific rules ever furnished 
me except the act of Congress in reference to the payment of claims. 



Question. How long did yon pay such claims ? 

Answer. I coiniiienced paying-, I tliink, about tlie 1st of April, 1SG9, 
and paid until the last of March, li^72 ; I think about the last day of 
March. 

Question. Did you make any investigation of these cases referred to 
in your comnuinication here before making these official reports; if so, 
what investigation did you make ? 

Answer. Simply the questioning of claimants. 

Question. What sort of a book was this in 3'our office to which yon 
refer, as noting payments having been made to these parties "1 

Answer. There was what is called a general record-book, in which 
the names of all claimants in cases where vouchers are sent to the dis- 
bursing officer are entered in alphabetical order. There is also a record- 
book containing the record of payments made in numerical order. The 
hook I refer to there must have been a general record-book of claims 
allowed from the voucher furuislied to disbursing officers. 

Question. Did this book contain the name of any other disbursing 
agent than Mr. Sanvinet? 

Answer. I think none but Mr. Sauviiiet's and my own disbursements. 
Mandeville's books were separate entirely. 

Cross-examination hy the accused, through his counsel. 

Question. Will you please tell the court, in your own way, the diffi- 
culties you found in the identification and payments of colored claims 
for bounty, &c.? 

Answer. All I conld do toward identification was, in the first place, 
if I had a discharge-pai^er to examine that, and compare them with the 
description in the discharge-papers ; and then, if they gave me a list of 
the names of the men of their comi)any, with their rank, whether cor- 
porals, sergeants, or musicians, or whatever they may have been, that 
I would compare with my record book ; that is all I had to go by. 

They cannot identity people in Louisiana, because no one could know 
whether they had been members of a company and a regiment; or, in 
other words, they could be identified, because they conld get five hun- 
dred witnesses to swear to a man's identity for five hundred dollars. 

Then again I had to rely a little on my observation and questioning, 
whether they appeared to be straightforward and persistent in their 
claims or not. In a great many cases where attempts have been made, 
by questioning pretty sharply, they would ask leave to retire, and 
never return again. That is all I had to go by. 

Question. You had, then, great numbers of applicants for pay who 
confessed, directly or indirectly, that it was a fraudulent attiempt on 
their part ! 

Answer. Some confessed to that and others did not; I never had any 
l)ersistent claimants after they were once discharged from the office. 

Question. I was speaking about the number, whether it was a com- 
mon or uncommon thing ? 

Answer. I cannot say it was common, in considering the nnmber I 
have paid ; I presume I have had at least one hundred; perhaps more, 
attempts at fraud practiced upon me, and in one or two cases success- 
fully practiced. 

Q. Where did these claimants come from in your instance ? 

Answer. From all parts of the State ; some, I think, from away up 
Eed Eiver, four hundred miles beyond New Orleans. If I am allowed 
to state to the court — I don't know how it is in other States, but for two 
years, around my office, at every corner could be seen sharx)ers every 



149 

day, lying arouud in waiting. In one of these cases, where I got a man 
who confessed his crime, and implicated two others that I had suspi- 
cioned, I retained counsel, and was advised by the conusel to release 
this man and have him give evidence ; but they were able to retain one 
of the best lawyers in New Orleans, even in a police court. He was ar- 
rested for obtaining money on false pretenses, and against the peace 
and dignity of the State, and it was decided there tliat the case could 
not be brought in that court, because it was not an offense against the 
peace and dignity of the State, and he was discharged. He claimed 
that I had the Army and Navy at ray back, and had the district attor- 
ney to protect me. I then brought the case before the United States 
commissioner there, and the district attorney entered a nolle proseinii, 
on the ground that I was the loser, and the CTOverunient was not the 
loser. 

Question. (By the Court.) What was the name of the district attor- 
ney I 

Answer. JMr. Beckwith, at New Orleans, at that time. He said it 
was an offense against me, and not against the Government: I had no 
business to pay the wrong man. 

Question. Did you have to take any measures for the protection of 
these men as you paid them ? 

Answer. I endeavored to, without much avail. I would take their 
money in currency, count it out to them, and explain to them the de- 
nomination of the bills, and give them a card to the Freedmeu's Savings 
Bank, and ask them to go there and get the cashier to count their 
money, and they would go to the grog-shop and lose half of it. I think 
there were about three of them who put their money into the bank, out 
of the 4,321 cases that I paid. I think the cashier told me that. 

Question. Did you have to let these claimants out of your oifice by 
the back way ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I let them out of the front way. There has been 
something said about that. I would like to explain it if the court de- 
sires to hear. There was a complaint once made against me that I was 
barracooning and corraling these men in the back yard. This was a 
great mistake. When the office was on Carondelet street, near the sav- 
ings bank, they were constantly dispersed by the police; they were 
landed from the steamers every morning, and these sharpers, both white 
and black, would surround them the very first thing and get them off 
to Jew stores and sell them large amounts of clothing; and for that rea- 
son I hired a house up in what is called the " Garden District," where 
there was a large back yard, and there I erected awnings as far as 1 
could with seats, and took in about a hundred every luorning — that was 
all I could attend to in a day — and have the police send the rest off and 
drive away the sharpers. Then I would take them in one by one, and 
as fast as the business with one was transacted I would let him out the 
front door. For that reason I was accused of barracooning and corral- 
ing them. I did that for their own protection, not that I wished to 
place any indignity upon them. 

Question. Did these claimants generally bring their witnesses along 
with them to identify them ? 

Answer. No, sir, not generally ; they could not, except in very rare 
instances. When they had a discharge, they brought it, but many 
claims were prosecuted without a discharge. 

Question. These claimaints, I suppose, had commonly been laborers 
and field-hands, before enlistment ? 

Answer. Yes, a great majority of them had. 



150 

Question. Were they very ignorant, as a class ? 

Answer. Yes ; very lew could sign their names ; they signed by 
mark. 

Question. Was there a scarcity of names among them ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I should think tliere was a superfluity of names 
among them ; especially classical names. 

Question. When one of them died, did he leave many widows, as a 
common thing? 

Answer. 1 don't know as to that. 

Question. Were there many widows who appeared as claimants in the 
case of a dead soldier ? 

Answer. I don't know about that. I prosecuted some cases for wid- 
ows for the Bureau. 

Question. In the payments of these men, did you exercise the utmost 
care and diligence? 

Answer. 1 think I did ; I am quite confident I did. 

Question. After vou had paid the men, did they come again the second 
time ? 

Answer. A very few did. Some of them would go out and get robbed, 
and come back and demand payment a second time. When I showed 
them by the books tliey had been paid, they admitted it, and would go 
off, in most cases. I don't know of but one ]>erson who ever wrote to 
Washington for bounty, after it liad been paid, and that was a woman 
who confessed, in the presence of witnesses, that I had paid her the full 
amount, and she was trying to get it a second time. 1 think perhaps 
one hundred came back and asked for it, but as soon as I would dis- 
miss them, they would go away and never return. 

Question. I notice on this list of those which have been read you have 
reported two or three instances that were paid by Sauvinet. Did you 
have applications made to you for payments where the payments 
appeared to have been made by Mandeville ? 

Answer. Some few. 

Question. About how many? 

Answer. I really could not remember j perhaps a dozen, perhaps 
twenty. 

Question. All the time you were there ? 

Answer. Not many along the last of my services, say lu 1809 and 
1870. 

Question. Was it a notorious fact all over the State that there was 
this place in New Orleans where they were paid ? 

Answer. 1 think it was generally known throughout the State. 

Question. Was there any officer or agent sent by the Commissioner to 
make an investigation in the case while you were disbursing in Louis- 
iana? 

Answer. Yes; I believe General Sewall was sent down there once. 

By the Court : 
Question. You said that you had made payments twice. 
Answer. I think I have made two or three twice. I know of one I 
made througli mistake. 
Question. Did you lose that money yourself? 
Answer. No, sir; it was refunded to me by General Balloch. 
Question. Did you make a stated account of it, and give a receipt ? 
Answer. Yes ; I i)aid the voucher. 
Question. You put in a voucher, an account-current? 



151 

Answer. No, sir; these vouchers are differeut from other accounts; 
the voucher was made out in Washington. 

Question. You receipted to Balloch for the money ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; that is, the first part. A list was sent to me cover- 
ing- a number of claims, and a check for the amount. 

Question. Did you pay the money twice yourself, or did you pay the 
money after it was paid before by somebody else ? 

Answer. I paid the money by mistake to the man myself. I paid it 
the first time; paid it to the wrong party. General Balloch then 
refunded me the money to make that amount good to the original 
claimant. 

Question. Who is this witness Jones who identified so many of the 
claimants ? 

Answer. He was formerly agent of the Bureau, I believe, for the pros- 
ecution of claims — employed by the Bureau. 

Question. I don't understand in wliat way he would be an agent of 
the Bureau for the prosecution of claims. 

Answer. As I understand it, he was employed on a certain salary as 
agent of the Bureau, and then authorized to prosecute claims for these 
parties free of charge; no fee being allowed. That was in order to facil- 
itate the prosecution of claims. 

Question. Did Sauvinet remain agent after you were relieved ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. When was he relieved ? 

Answer. I relieved him myself about tlie last of March, 1SG9. 

(Question. Did you ever become satisfied that in any of these cases 
that you reported to Balloch the parties had been paid i? 

Answer. No, sir; I merely reported that they applied to me for their 
bounty, and the books showed so and so, and I thought there might be 
a fraud somewhere. I believed F. W. Jones committed the fraud. 

Question. You spoke of General Howard having sent an inspector 
down ; was it about that time ? 

Answer. I think it was. It was just before I relieved Mr. Sauvin^t; 
I think it was about that time. 

By the Judge- Advocate, (with permission :) 

Question. When you made these 4,321 payments, from whom did you 
get the money to make such payments ? 

Answer. Genei-al Jialloch. 

Question. When did you take receipts for such money froju the bounty 
claimants I 

Answer. The vouchers were sent to me. The first thing, the voucher 
was made out in Washington with the number of the certificate and 
everything ; then I got the claimant to sign the voucher and returned it 
at the close of the week to Washington ; then a check would be sent to 
me covering all these claims, and the party would then appear to get his 
money. These checks were all deposited in the Treasury. Not in a 
single instance was a claimant paid by check by me, but all in cur- 
rency. 

Question. Y''ou checked against that deposit ? 

Answer. Yes; I deposited every check, and then drew checks as I 
wanted this money. I did not draw a check iu favor of the claimant, 
but drew a certain amount of money every day to pay the claimants iu 
currency; that was the act of Congress. 

Question. Did these vouchers that you returned show on their face 
any place where the money was alleged to be received by the claimant ? 



152 

Answer. I tliink the receipt was dated Wasliingtou. 

The examiuatiou was closed, and the witness then retired. 

AsBURY N. Thompson then appeared before the conrt, and, being duly 
sworn in the presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question, Please state your name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. Asbury N. Thompson ; clerk. War Department, in what is 
known as the Freedmen's Branch, Adjutant-General's Office ; residing 
at 1000 D street southeast. 

Question. Did you know Bvt. Lieut. Col. Edgar C. Beman"? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you ever seen these papers before ; if so, when and 
where? (Exhibit S*, T^ U^ V*, shown witness.) 

Answer. I have seen these j)apers before in the office in which I am 
employed. 

Question. Do you knew how they got there? 

Answer. They were transferred with the late records of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. They were transferred with all the 
records of the Bureau. 

Question. By whom ? 

Answer. Perhaps I don't fully understand the question. The trans- 
fer of all the records was made to the building now occupied by the 
Ereedmen's Branch, but I could not individualize the officer perhaps 
by whom they were transferred. 

Question. What was the date of transfer ? 

Answer. The transfer of the records began, as near as I recollect, 
June 29, 1872, and continued regularly along, I believe, for some two or 
three days, and a portion of them were not transferred until at a sub- 
sequent date, possibly about the latter part of July or early part of 
August. It is a matter upon which I have not refreshed my memory, 
and I give my impressions. 

By the Accused : 

Question. Where was General Howard during the latter part of July, 
referred to in your answer ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. Was he not in Washington ? 

Answer. I don't know. I may state that I was sent to arrange the 
remaining records that I spoke of, on or about the IGth of July, for 
transfer to our present building; but was subpoenaed as a witness in 
Louisville, and was there, I think. I did not get back until about the 3d 
or 4th of August. I do not know where General Howard was at that 
time. 

Examination was closed, and the witness retired. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : If the court please, I desire now 
to offer in evidence, if there is no objection on the part of the accused, 
a letter from General Howard, the Commissioner, transmitting to the 
War Department the report of the investigation of frauds in Kentucky, 
and his remarks thereon, together with the report itself. If there is 
objection, I will wait until I can authenticate it. 

The accused said, (through his counsel:) We do not object to the au- 
thentication of the paper. I have no doubt it is authenticated by Gen- 
eral Vincent, whose name appears there ; but we object to its being 
brought into the record as a record from the War Department, because 



153 

it is not complete. This is a letter addressed to the Secretary of Vi'nr 
by General Howard, iu January, 1S72, calling his attention to matters 
which led to the court-martial of General Eunkle and Lieutenant Gra- 
ham. It is the report of General Howard calling the attention of the 
Secretary of War to these persons. General Howard sent a committee 
of investigation to Louisville to investigate these very matters, which 
were afterward charged against General Runkle. This letter from the 
Adjutant-Generars Oitice quotes that portion of General Howard's com- 
munication which relates to this commission, which is paragraph 1 in 
General Howard's letter. Paragraph 2 is not quoted or copied. That 
is a recommendation that ]\Lijor Eunkle and E. E. Johnson be required 
to report and explain ; third, that steps be taken to bring Lieutenant Gra- 
ham to trial; fourth, legal proceedings are recommended against Mr. 
Burbridge. I wish, if the communication is put in, to have it entire. 
L'pon this communication there is a long report from J. Holt, Judge- 
Advocate General. It is very important in this connection; the matter 
was brought before him at that early day. I would like to have the 
paper complete if it is to go in evidence, and not incomplete. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, I was under the impres- 
sion that the counsel was willing that the copy that I had shown him 
should go in evidence as I had prepared it. At the time I exhibited it 
to him this morning, I handed him the original, from which he has just 
quoted ; but, as he desires it, I will offer the original and have a fair 
copy made. 

[Original paper admitted by the accused. A copy is attached to the 
record and marked Exhibit W^. The indorsements form a part of 
the exhibit.] 

The judge-advocate also offered in evidence with it the report of a board, 
partly civil and i^artly military, appointed by General Howard to iu- 
vestigate certain alleged v/rongful acts on the part of subagents in the 
State of Kentucky, which report was inclosed in his letter to the Sec- 
retary of War. 

Considered as read. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit X^ 

The court then, at 3 o'clock and 20 minutes p. m,, adjourned until to- 
morrow at 11 o'clock a. m. 



SEVENTEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, B. C, April 1, 1874 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Frcsent 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartemaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillerv, U. S. A. ; 



154 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infautry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A., jndge-advocate ; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and 
approved. 

Mr. H. C. Harmon, a former witness, was present and pronounced 
his testimony of yesterday to be correct as recorded. 

Mr, Edgar C. Beman, a former witness, was present and pronounced 
his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

After the readiRg, 

The Witness said : There was a question asked by the counsel of 
me yesterday to explain the difficulties attending the payment of these 
soldiers. I wish to say, in addition to what I said yesterday, that quite 
a number of cases came before me where the claimant, thinking that 
his discharge would be sufficient evidence of identity to procure the 
bounty, would sell that discharge to another party for sums varying from 
$10 to as high as $300. He would get tired of waiting for his claim and 
sell his discharge, and sell it in good faith, thinking that the party to 
whom he sold it could collect the bounty, and in some cases he would 
afterward be a party to a fraud, not, I think, with any intention to de- 
fraud the Government, but to carry out his contract with the party to 
whom he sold his discharge. In one case that I recollect distinctly', I 
paid the man his money. When he came for payment he had no dis- 
charge, but told me that his claim was prosecuted without a discharge ; 
but he identified himself, and I paid him. In about three weeks he ap- 
peared with a discharge, thinking thereby to get his money a second 
time ; but it so happened that the grocer to whom he had sold it in- 
formed me beforehand and I headed iiim off. He had sold it to the 
grocer for $30, and had again bought it back thinking he could get his 
money a second time. 

There was another question asked me, and that, taken in couuectiou 
with other questions, may have misled me as to its purport. 1 was 
asked as to the scarcity of names, and I answered that there appeared 
to be a superfluity of names, especially classical names. If the inten- 
tion was to ask if there was more than one man of the same name in the 
same company, I should have answered the question differently. I did 
not know what the intention of the counsel was in asking that question. 

The counsel for the accused said : The idea was that there might be a 
great many men of the name of Sam, and a great many of the name of 
Bob, and a great many of the name of Jim. 

Answer. Then I will correct the answer. I have known as many as 
two, and I think in one or two instances of three men in the same com- 
pany by the name of George Washington ; they would be called George 
Washington 1st, George Washington 2d, George Washington 3d, 
to distinguish them. I do not know in regard to other names whether 
I observed any particular number of them. I recollect one case where 
I paid Jim Jackson, and afterwards James Jackson wrote to Wash- 
ington for his bounty. The letter was returned to me with an indorse- 
ment from the Auditor that the records showed I had paid him, and 
asking for an explanation. I wrote back to him asking if James Jack- 
son and Jim Jackson were identical ; then he said that they were not, 
and that I had rightfully paid the first man. There was a new settle- 



155 

lueut, and there was a siispicion of fraud entertained by the Depart- 
ment in regard to the second man, James Jackson. James Jackson 
was a party prosecuting another claim. 

In regard to the inspector being sent to New Orleans, I am quite 
confident now that General Sewell came there before I assumed the 
duties, and it was ui)on his recommendation that I assumed the duties 
of disbursing bounties, and relieved Sauvinet, and it was about that 
time many of these cases were arising and had been reported to Wash- 
ington, I tiiink. 

I was also asked what measures were taken for the discovery of 
claimants and payment of bounties. I neglected to state yesterday 
that it wiis my custom to send a letter of advice to every claimant as 
soon as vouchers were received ; that is, to the place where he was 
residing when his claim was made, notifying him. 

The AcousED said : If the court please, after consultation with my 
counsel, I find that there is a matter upon which I would like to have 
the witness interrogated ; that is, in reference to the sureties of Mande- 
ville. 

The Judge- Advocate said: If the court please, I have no objection 
to the accused interrogating the witness. 

The accused said, (through his counsel:) Wlmt I wish is simply to 
suggest to the court that this morning we learned the witness ran astray 
as to his knowledge in regard to Mandeville ; we were informed that he 
had considerable knowledge arising of Mandeville's transactions. 

The witness was then examined as follows : 

By the Court : 

Question. State fully what, if anything, you know as to the suit against 
Saint Clair Mandeville's sureties on his bond as the disbursing officer of 
the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Answer. According to the best of my recollection, some time in July 
or August, 18G8, I paid Mr. P. H. Morgan, a lawyer in New Orleans, 
between $200 and $300 for professional services and court-fees, in the case 
of the prosecution of the sureties of Saint Clair JMandeville. Some time 
in 1869, if I remember rightly, I was ordered by General Howard, by let- 
ter either from him or his Adjutant- General, but from his office, to call 
on Mr. Morgan and ascertain the condition of that suit, what prospect 
of obtaining a judgment there was, and what the prospect was of recov- 
ering, in case a judgment was obtained against the sureties. I was told 
by Mr. Morgan that there was every prospect of obtaining a judgment, 
and that in case a judgment was obtained the sureties were good for the 
amount. I afterward called on Mr. Morgan, without instructions from 
General Howard, as agent of the Bureau ; he was at that time United 
States district attorney, I think. I was told by him that the case was 
progressing but had not been reached, but he hoped to reach it before 
long. I called on him once after that; I cannot tell how long it was, 
but got just about the same answer. I do not know that I ever called 
on him after tluit 5 I think I called on him three times in regard to that 
case. 

Question. What was the date of your last visit? 

Answer. I cannot tell. I think it may have been as late as the early 
part of the year 1870, possibly; I cannot recollect as to that. 

Question. Did you remain there until the Bureau was wound up? 

Answer. Yes ; I wound up the affairs of the Bureau in New Orleans. 

Question. The suit w^as still in court ? 

Answer. I think the suit is pending yet. 



156 

Qaestion. So far as you know, the suit still remains in tbe hands of 
the district attorney ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. When you were mustered out of your volunteer rank, did 
you remain as agent of the Bureau ; and, if so, how were you paid ? 

Answer. I did, under a new appointment, giving a new bond. 1 was 
retained with the same pay and allowances that I had formerly as an 
officer, under an act of Congress authorizing it. 

Question. You received a new appointment and gave a new bond. 
From whom did you receive your appointment ? 

Answer. The Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, if !• recollect 
rightly. I am not positive about that; 1 think it was ; I have no doubt 
about it. 

Question. To whom did you give a bond and for what amount? 

Answer. I gave a new bond for either $5,000 or $0,000, I cannot tell; 
I think it was given to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. Can you ascertain positively about that? 

Answer. I have nothing here by which I can tell. I have no doubt 
that it was given to General Howard; the bond is undoubtedly in ex- 
istence. 

Question. How were you paid after receiving your new appointment? 

Answer. I was paid by check from Washington. Before that I be- 
lieve I paid myself, when I was a regular disbursing officer. 

Question. From what funds w ere you paid ? 

Answer, I do not know. 

Question. Who paid you ; General Balloch ? 

Answer. Not always. Along the last of my service, after General 
Balloch left the Bureau, 1 think I was paid once with a check sent by 
General Howard, and sometimes by Major Brown after that. 

Question. How did your connection with the Bnreau terminate '? 
what document or communication did you receive, and from whom, by 
which you terminated such employment ? 

Answer. I am under the impression I received a letter signed by Gen. 
E. Whittlesey, authorizing or ordering me to discontinue all payments 
after a certain time, and to sell off certain property I had there of no 
great value, office-furniture, &c., and to make reports, &c. ; in other 
words, to wind up my business ; that was the sum and substance of it. 

Question. By whose authority was that communication issued? ■ 

Answer. I do not recollect. 

Question. Have you it among your retained papers, so that you could 
get it ? 

Answer. I have no retained papers here. I presume that is among 
my papers, but I have no papers short of Michigan. 

Question. Do you recollect whether it was in the form of a special 
order from the War Department or from the Commissioner's Office? 

Answer. I do not remember; I am under the impression, however, it 
was in the form of an official letter from General Whittlesey, and giving 
instructions in the letter. 

Question. Who was he at that time ? 

Answer. 1 think he was either adjut mt-general or in si)ector- general 
of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. Under whom ? 

Answer. General Howard. 



157 

By the Court : 

Question. Did you ever liave occasion to make paymeuts througli 
irregular agents '^ ' 

Answer. I do not remember of any except one. It was done at the 
suggestion and wish of the chiimant, to save him expense ; I got special 
authority before I would do it; it was a payment to a claimant at 
Shreveport, through the Freedmen's Branch Bank. One reason why I 
was allowed to do that was, that the cashier of the bank knew the 
soldier and could identify him, and being a bonded officer, and an offi- 
cer of the bank, was supposed to be a reliable man. It was an ex- 
ceptional case, in order to save the claimant a great expense and a 
journey of 400 miles. I have forgotten the name of the claimant, but I 
recollect the case distinctly. 

Question. Do you know whether the man ever got that money or not? 

Answer. I think I recollect getting a letter from him, stating it was 
all right, and that he received the money. I have no doubt of it. He 
must have received the money, because the check was sent payable to 
the man's order, and of course the cashier could not paj'^ it without his 
signature on the back of the check. 

By the Accused (through his counsel:) 

Question. You testified yesterday in regard to the payment of bounties 
that you had received no general instructions. 1 wish to ask you if you 
did not receive printed orders and circulars relating to that matter ? 

Answer. I presume I understand what the counsel desires to ask me. 
I suppose I received all these circulars and all these orders, but I recol- 
lect very little that applies to the identification and payment of claim- 
ants. I think it relates mostly to the prosecution of claims ; what should 
be considered as evidence and what are claims and who are the heirs, 
&c., general rules and regulations for allowing bounties, but no distinct 
specific rules for the payment by bounty agents to the claimant himself. 

By the Court : 
Question. You received the usual files ? 
Answer. Yes ; I presume I did. 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him and pro- 
nounced by him to be correct as recorded. 
The witness then retired. 

Mr. John M. Sims then came before the court and being duly sworn 
in the presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. John M. Sims, chief of the miscellaneous division of the 
Second Auditor's Office. I live in Washington. 

Question. How long have you been in that office? 

Answer. Twenty-six years. 

Question. Do you know Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know Geo. W. Balloch, late brevet brigadier-gen- 
eral United States Volunteers ? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do you know J. M. Brown, late brevet major United States 
Volunteers *? 



158 

Answer. I have seeu him once or twice in the room in settling ac- 
connts. 

Question. Between 1SG7 and 1872, in July, do you know what duty 
General Howard was upon? 

Answer. He was in the Freedmen's Bureau as Commissioner. 

Question. Do you know in what capacity General Balloch or Major 
Brown acted I 

Answer. As disbursing officer part of the time and General Howard 
part of the time. That is, vouchers were made out part of the time in 
General Howard's name and a portion of the time in General Balloch's 
name, and some tew months in Major Brown's name. 

Question. Where were those vouchers rendered in the Treasury? 

Answer. To the Second Auditor's Office. That is, the accounts of pay- 
ments of arrears of pay and bounty to colored soldiers; and the other 
portion was rendered to the Third Auditor's Office until the act of Con- 
gress transferred it to the War Department, and from that time they 
were sent to the Second Auditor's Office. 

Question. Do you know whether there are any vouchers for bounty 
on tile in the Treasury rendered by the Freedmen's Bureau July or Au- 
gust, 1807, in favor of Henry Rowins, for $290 ; Joseph Adkinsfor $290; 
Jerome Brown for $290; Henry Rogers $318.80; Martha Calston, wid- 
ow of Peter Calston, for $331.18; aggregating $1,520.28? 

Answer. The vouchers are on tile for those accounts. 

Question. By whom does this money purport to be paid on these 
vouchers ? 

Answer. By General Balloch, I believe ; I cannot tell all of tliem un- 
less I look ov^er the vouchers, but I think those were paid by General 
Balloch. 

Question. Refer to those vouchers and see. 

[The witness does as directed. | 

Answer. Henry Rowins appears to have been paid by Balloch at 
Washington, August 5, 18G7 ; Joseph Adkins by Balloch at Washing- 
ton, August 8, 1807 ; Jerome Brown by General Balloch, August 8, 1807, 
at Washington ; Martha Calston at Washington, August 5, 1807, by 
General Balloch ; Henry Rogers, paid by General Balloch on Septem- 
ber 10, 1807, at Washington. Henry Rogers received $318.80 ; Martha 
Calston received $431.48; Jerome Brown received $290; Joseph Ad- 
kins received $290 ; Henry Rowins received $290. 

Question. Did these vouchers have any approval, upon them ? 

Answer. The abstracts on the last sheets are approved by General 
Howard. They have the approval as follows : 

[The witness reads :] 

I have exarainetl the vouchers noted on the above abstract, and hereby approve the 
payment of the same. 

O. 0. HOWARD, 

Commissioner. 

By the Court : 

Question. What is the object of this inquiry ? 

The JudGtE-Advocate. My object is to prove conclusively that in 
all the cases heretofore mentioned in evidence and referred to, particu- 
larly in the testimony of General Balloch, vouchers were duly filed in 
the Treasury on abstracts approved by General Howard. General Bal- 
loch in his testimony has not spoken positively that such was the fact 
in each instance ; sometimes he has said it was his belief, or his im- 
pression. He was very ready to swear that all payments of the irregular 
bounty-fund had actually been made under his direction, but not so 



159 

positively as to these transactions, and hence I feel it necessary to 
introduce evidence to put the matter beyond doubt, as I have the 
original vouchers and abstracts here in the hands of the proper offlcial 
of the Treasury. 

A ME3IBER of the court. I do not think there is any dispute about 
this mode of doing business. 

The Counsel for the accused said : We make no question about that. 

A Member of the court. I do not think there is any question that 
these vouchers were sent to the Treasury, and that he claimed credit the 
moment he parted company with the money. 

The Judge Advocate. If the accused is willing to admit that in 
each of these instances where 1 have produced the letter-press-book, or 
lists, or the jackets of cases, the vouchers were rendered to the Treasury 
by General Balloch and General Howard himself, on abstracts approved 
by General Howard, well and good ; but unless he is willing to admit that, 
in all the cases that have been mentioned thus far in evidence, I desire 
to go ahead and prove, actually, that vouchers Avere rendered to the 
Treasury in each of these cases on abstracts approved by General Hoav- 
ard. 

The Counsel for the accused said : We admit that because the fact 
has been proven and we are unable to disprove it. 

The Judge-Advocate said: As the accused has made the admission 
it will not necessitate a further examination on that point. I have some 
few cases more which 1 intend to submit to General Balloch when called 
up again, in regard to which I wish to ascertain Avhere vouchers have 
been tiled. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. The case of Julius Jones, late private Company H, Sixty- 
first Regiment United States Colored Troops, certificate Ko. 338,070, 
for the amount of $235.o3 — had you any voucher on the Treasury for 
such a payment ? 

Answer. Yes, sir, [produces paper;] I have a voucher of the pay- 
ment of Julius Jones by General Balloch, June 13, 1868, $223.03. The 
original certificate was for $235,53 ; paid at Washington. This receipt 
calls for $223.03 ; the Treasury certificate called for $235.53. The differ- 
ence is fees paid the attorney. 

Question. Did any abstract accompany that voucher? 

Answer. Yes; that is the abstract. [Witness produces paper.] 

Question. By whom was that abstract approved reciting that voucher ? 

Answer. The abstract is certified by General Balloch and approved 
by General Howard. 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Treasury in the 
case of Joseph Hewey, late private Company F, Fifty-fifth United 
States Colored Troops, for $305.41, certificate Ko. 373,170? 

Answer. Yes, of a payment to Joseph Hewey by General Balloch, 
Washington, 11th September, 1808, $292.91; the difference made up in 
fees of attorney and notarial. The original certificate was for $305.41. 

Question. Did any abstract accompany that reciting the voucher! 

Answer. Yes, it is included on the abstract I have just mentioned of 
payment of June, 1868, the receipt is the amount less the fees. 

Question. Did the Treasury ever get a receipt for the fees ? 

Answer. Yes ; another voucher. If the fees are not paid at the time, 
we hold the officer accountable. We hold the officer always accountable 
for the amount he draws from the Treasury on the certificates, and 
credit him with the amount he pays the attorneys or i^arties. 



160 

Questiou. Upon receipts of the parties to whom moneys were actually 
paid ? 

Answer. Yes ; there are many instances where attorneys only are paid, 
and it is a long while afterward before the claimant is paid, and we hold 
the officer accountable, have an account with him. 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Treasury for 
the payment of a Ijounty-claim of Jackson Doyle, late private Com- 
pany I, Fifty-fifth United States Colored Troops, by certificate 380,456, 
for $271.50 i 

Answer. An account has been rendered to the Treasury in the case of 
Jackson Do vie, paid by General Balloch, at Washington, February 15, 
1868, in the sum of $25.50, leaving $232.50 advances. 

Question. Was an abstract reciting that case tiled in the Treasury ap- 
proved by anybody °? 

Answer. There was; [witness produces paper,] apijroved by General 
Howard. 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Treasury on 
the bounty claim of William Austin, late private in Company I, Sixty- 
third Regiment United States Colored Troops, certificate 366,415, for 
$14.40 ? 

Answer. There has been a voucher presented to the accounting offi- 
cers of the Treasury in the case of William Austin, paid by General 
Balloch on the 16th March, 1868, in the sum of $6.90 ; the original cer- 
tificate was for $14.40. The difference is made up by fees. 

Questiou. Did any abstract accompany that voucher reciting it ! 

Answer, Yes, sir, [witness produces paper;] approved by General 
Howard. 

By the Accused : 

Question. What is the number on the last abstract ; how many vouch- 
ers f 

Answer. Two thousand three hundred and forty-eight on the abstract 
of March 16, 1868. 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Treasury in the 
bounty-claim of George Taylor, late musician Company F, One Hun- 
dred and Tenth Kegiment United States Colored Troops, certificate 
358,642, for $200! 

Answer. There has been a voucher rendered to the Second Auditor's 
Office in the case of George Taylor, paid by General Balloch, at Wash- 
ington, February 29, 1868, in the sum of $187.50. The original certifi- 
cate was for $200. 

Question. Was any abstract reciting that account presented at the 
Treasury approved by anybody '? 

Answer. Yes, [witness produces papers ;] an abstract for February, 
1868. The voucher was paid that month. The abstract is approved 
by General Howard. 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Treasury in the 
claim of the bounty claimant Richard Long, late private Company K, 
Sixtv-first Eegiment United States Colored Troops, certificate 341,164, 
for $230.98. 

Answer. There was a voucher presented to the Second Auditor's 
Office in the case of Eichard Long, paid by General Balloch, at Wash- 
ington, June 13, 1868, in the sum of $218.98 ; Treasury certificate called 
for $230.98, the difference being attorney's fees and notarial fees. 

Question. Was any abstract rendered with these accounts reciting 
the vouchers ? 



IGl 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

■Question. By whom were they approved ? 

Answer. Approved by General Howard. 

By the Court: 

Question. What is the number of such vouchers ? 

Answer. 2992, month of June, 1868. 

Question. Has any account ever been rendered to the Tr.'.asury in tue 
bounty claim of John Frazt^r, late private Company D, Sixty-first Regi- 
ment United States Colored Troops, certificate 301,379, for $242.25 ? 

Answer. There has beeu a voucher presented to the Second Auditor's 
Ofdce in the case of John Frazer, paid by General Balloch, at Wash- 
ington, June 15, 18()8, in the sum of $203.50. The Treasury certificate 
was for $242.25; the difference made up by attorney's fees and notarial 
fees, and advances. 

Question. Was any abstract filed with that voucher approved by 
anybody*? 

Answer. Yes; by General Howard. It was in the same month as the 
last — June, 1808; the same as the 2992 cases. 

Question. Who has taken credit upon these vouchers of Jones, Long, 
Frazer, Doyle, Austin, and Taylor in the Treasury? 

Answer. General Balloch. 

Question. Do you know whether these vouchers, or any of them, since 
they were filed in the Treasury, have been canceled or withdrawn by 
General Howard or General Balloch? 

Answer. They are here, and have not been withdrawn, having been 
admitted in the settlement of General Howard's accounts in the Second 
Auditor's Office. 

Question. They have not been canceled ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. The vouchers in the case of Morris Sells, Samuel McDonald, 
Charles Collins, Mariom Hord, Alexander Dunn, Louisa Briggs, Alfred 
Hammond, James Kobbins, Henry Davis, Mike Oliver, and James Ponder, 
which have just been admitted by the accused as having beeu filed in 
the Treasury — do you know whether these vouchers, or any of them, 
have been withdrawn or canceled either by General Howard or Geueral 
Balloch! 

Answer. They have not been withdrawn, because I find them in the 
account here. They have all been admitted to the credit of General 
Howard. 

Question. As to the cancellation? 

Answer. I don't know of any being canceled. 

Question. All these vouchers to which reference has been made since 
you were on the witness-stand — to whose credit are they charged on the 
books of the Treasury ? 

Answer. General Howard; the vouchers are admitted to his credit; 
the money or certificates was charged to him. 
^ Question. He is credited back with payment? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. The account, then, involving these vouchers is in General 
Howard's name on the books of the Treasury? 

Answer. In the name of General Howard on the books. 

Question. When General Balloch rendered these vouchers to the 
Treasury, to whose account were they credited? 

Answer. They were not examined then. The vouchers were all exam- 
ined, and if there were any errors we notified General Balloch. But 
11 H C 



162 

when it came to a geueral statement of it, then the question arose who 
should be hekl accountable. 

Question. In whose name was the statement made'? 

Answer. In General Howard's name. When the accounts had been 
examined, from the commencement to the end of that disbursement, 
then the question came up with reference to in whose name they should 
be stated at the Treasury in making up the settlement, but not on an 
examination of the vouchers, because it took a great many months to 
examine through the accounts. 
By the Court : 

Question. As soon as erroneous vouchers were found they were 
charged back to General Howard ? 

Answer. In a statement of differences when we made up the account j 
but, in the i)rocess of examination, we would always, if we found a 
voucher paid by General Balloch or by Major Brown that required ex- 
planation, we w^ould call upon him, in the examination of the account 
and before we made a settlement, for an explanation ; but when the ac- 
count was examined throngh and we made a statement, the whole was 
made in the name of General Howard, and the differences were charged 
against General Howard. 

Question. When the account had been rendered in the Second Audi- 
tor's Office, and had been examined and found to be apparently correct, 
and referred then to the Second Comptroller, allowed by him, and the 
account closed, and it was afterward ascertained that persons com- 
plained that they had not received their money, whose receipts, appar- 
ently, were on file for the amount claimed ; how was such an account 
re-opened? 

Answer. We make a supplementary settlement. If we find the 
Toucher has been paid fraudulently, we make a supplementary settle- 
ment of that particular case and charge it back to the officer on the 
books, whether his account was open or closed. 

Question. After the account is closed, is it ever reopened on the dis- 
covery of fraud ? 

Answer. In that way, by making supplementary settlement. 

Question. On w hat basis ; on what description of fact does the 
Second Auditor make a new charge after having closed the account ? 

Answer. When fraud has been discovered in a case, has come before 
the courts, and the party was convicted in that way, they would ; or if 
they examined the papers themselves and were satisfied from their own 
examination that the case was fraudulently paid, they would, upon their 
own motion, with the approval of the Comptroller of course ; the account- 
ing-officer would state the account and send it to the Comptroller for 
his action ; and if he confirmed it, it would be charged upon the books 
against the officer. 

Question. Are those the only descriptions of evidence upon which 
accounts are re-opened "? 

Answer. That is all that came under my jurisdiction ; I cannot speak 
for others. 

Question. Do you know whether General Howard's accounts have 
been closed and settled in the Second Auditor's Office or not, for these 
bounty cases, under the act of March 29, 18G7 ? 

Answer. They are not finally closed ; there is still a balance against 
hifn. 

Cross-examination hy the accused^ through his counsel. 

Question. W^hat is your duty as chief of the Miscellaneous Division ot 
the Second Auditor's Office ; your particular duty? 



' 163 

Answer. The examination of disbursing accounts in the Ordnance 
and Medical Departments, and in miscellaneous claims that do not be- 
long to the other branch of this office. 

Question. Then this particular class of payments comes properly into 
your division ? 

Answer. Come in by direction of the Auditor. First, they were par- 
tially examined in another branch of the office before transfer to my 
division, but no settlement was made of them until they came to my 
division. 

Question. Was the transfer of this account from General Balloch to 
General Howard made upon the order of anybody I 

Answer. By the Comptroller's order. 

Question. Have you that order in writing ? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Can you state the date of the order or about the date? 

Answer. No, sir ; General Howard's account was settled a year ago 
last January. It was some time a year ago last fall — fall of 1872, because 
the account was stated, I think, in January, 1873. 

Question. Has General Howard's account since that time been entirely 
settled, to your knowledge 1 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. His personal disbursing account? 

Answer. No, sir; there are some other credits to come into it on an- 
other settlement. 

Question. If the Auditor testified to the fact, was he probably mis- 
taken ? 

Answer. What, the final account ? 

Question. The Second Auditor. 

Answer. If he said that; 1 do not know what he said. His account 
is not finally closed. There are some credits to come in of money turned 
over. 

Question. I do not ask as to his general accounts. 

Answer. I cannot tell the specific portions that General Howard dis- 
bursed in his name, or that General Balloch disbursed in his name, or 
that Major Brown disbursed, because I did not personally examine these 
accounts. I was onlj^ chief of the division. Mr. Harrison was the gen- 
tleman who examined his accounts. He is now in the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Office. 

Question. Does the final discharge or acquittance of the Second Audi- 
tor come from your office "? 

Answer. In those accounts it would if everything was closed up, and 
if liis accounts were closed on the books of the Second Auditor's office. 

Question. Would the i^aper of acquittance go from your office "? 

Answer. Yes, so far as those accounts are concerned. I have written 
one or two letters — I don't know whether to General Howard or to Major 
Brown — stating so far as his individual disbursements are concerned 
we had no claims against him. I know of my own knowledge Major 
Brown was anxious to know whether there were any suspensions against 
him individually, and I have written a letter so far as his own disburse- 
ments are concerned, or his name in vouchers, there were no suspen- 
sions. Very likely there may have been a letter to General Howard 
written to that effect. 

Question. Is that a fact ? 

Answer. I cannot say, because I did not write it. I have tlint im- 
pression. It was written in the division if there was any letter vviitten. 



164 

at all. But when it comes to the general accounts of General Howard, 
embracing them all, I have never written a letter that his accounts were 
closed. 

By the Court : 

Question. Does not the Comptroller re-open the accounts of disbur- 
sing ofQcers, which have been closed, even when mistakes have been 
made by the accounting-officers of the Treasury themselves in settling 
such accounts 1 

Answer. Virtually he does, but by a supplementary settlement. 

Question. He does re-open them ? 

Answer. By supplementary settlement, if the account is closed on the 
books, and it is found he makes a mistake, we make an independent 
settlement and charge the officer. 

Question. What security has a disbursing officer that his accounts 
are ever finally closed by the Treasury Department ? 

Answer. None that I know of. They are closed for the time being. 
If it was settled that an officer's account could not be re-oi)eued again, 
it would be years and years before we would touch the account to settle 
it at all, because we find frequently that moneys have been turned over 
to that officer by another party, and he has never taken it up, and that 
would i)reclude the charging that officer with the money, and preclude 
the accounting-officer from making expeditious settlements, if anything 
aliunde could be brought in to show that the officer did not account for 
the money he received. 

Question. You stated that these vouchers were filed by General Bal- 
loch and he given credit 'I 

Answer. Those that were paid by General Balloch °? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. He did not receive credit, because they were made out in 
General Howard's name. 

Question. VVHio was given credit for those vouchers when they were 
filed. General Balloch or General Howard 1 

Answer. Nobody was given credit until the settlement of the account. 

Question. Who was given credit? 

Answer. No credit or debit until the settlement of the account. This 
money was drawn from the paymaster. It was not advanced from the 
Treasury; therefore nothing was on the books until the settlement of 
these accounts either debit or credit on the books of the Treasury. 

Question. When did the settlement of that commence — what time? 

Answer. The settlemeut was sent to the Comptroller on the last of Jan- 
uary, 1873. (The witness is shown a copy of the act of March 29, 1867.) 
I have seen that law. 

Question. Will you please refer to any one of tlie vouchers that we 
have had before us this morning? 

(Witness selected the voucher in the case of Joseph Hewey.) 

Question. Was that claim of Joseph Hewey primarily adjusted and 
allowed in the Second Auditor's Office ? 

Answer, It was. 

Question. What was done with it after it was allowed ? 

Answer. I don't know whether I understand the case or not. It re- 
mained with the papers on tile in the Second Auditor's Office. 

Question. I want to know what was done with the claim after it was 
adjusted and allowed. 

Answer. The certificate is sent to General Howard, made payable 
to him as Commissioner — a Treasury certificate. General Howard draws 



165 

money from the paymaster on that certificate. He is not charged with 
that money until he renders his accounts on our books. 

Question. When that certificate comes back to j^ou from the pay- 
master ? 

Answer. We know, then, that it has been paid. 

Question. You do not charge it, then, to General Howard ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. ]Sfo account, then, is opened in your ofiice at all when the 
Treasury certificate leaves it, with the claim ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Explain a little more about stating accounts. You say 
these vouchers were presented by General Balloch, and credit was given 
to some one, but there was no statement of the account until some time 
in 1872. What was the occasion of stating it at that time ? Why was 
it not stated before f 

Answer. There seemed to be a difficulty about knowing what to do 
with these accounts in charging them up. I did not get possession of 
them until a year or so after he disbursed, when they came to my hands. 
They were informally sent down to the Comptroller's to be examined, 
but no settlement made ; and when they came to me, I thought it was no 
way to examine an account, and I got Mr. Harrison to take up the ac- 
counts and to make a settlement, as you would in any other offlcer's 
account, debit him for all the money he received from the paymaster on 
these certificates, and give him credit for every voucher he paid out. 
That took a long time. 

Question. Explain the rule with other disbursing officers. For in- 
stance, an officer pays an account and renders vouchers. 

Answer. Generally, in that case he gets his money from the Treasury ; 
and as soon as he gets it from the Treasury he is charged, as soon as the 
money is drawn out, and charged before he renders any account. But 
in this case the money was drawn from'the paymaster and no charge 
raised on the books, like an advance to an officer through the Treasury. 
Therefore, there was no debit from these payments of the Treasury cer- 
tificates until the account came in showing this disposition of the fund 
Then it was debited and credited in the settlement, not from any charges 
on the book, but from the account rendered by General Howard. 

Question. I understand, then, that these vouchers were received from 
1867 u}) to what year ? 

Answer. 1871?, I think, it was turned over to the War Department. 

Question. What amountof money was probably paid on those vouchers ? 

Answer. I could not tell, but millions. 

Quesfeion. How many millions ? 

Answer. I could not tell, because I never examined. 

Question. During that time it was not known in your office who was 
responsible for this money 1 

Answer. The question never came up until the final settlement of the 
account. Before stating it, I wanted to know what to do with these 
accounts which were in my division ; whether each officer had to be 
held responsible for the amount he disbursed or not, and then the ques- 
tion came up with the Auditor, how it should be stated, and my instruc- 
tion was to make it up in the name of General Howard. 
Question. Who instructed you to make it that way ? 
Answer. The Auditor, E. B. French. 

Question. You spoke of having sent to General Howard a state- 
ment that the disbursements of his own account were all adjusted. 



166 

Answer. That is my impression ; that is, as far as he was concerned 
-there was no suspension. 

Question. Therefore you drew a distinction between moneys disbursed 
by him when acting as general disbursing agent, and those when he 
was Commissioner. 

Answer. We did it to accommodate the general ; he wanted to know 
when he disbursed whether there was anything against liim. 

Question. You drew a distinction between General Balloch and Gen- 
eral Howard and Major Brown? 

Answer. Yes ; in examination, for instance, we would not go to Gen- 
eral Howard, if we found a disbursement made by General Balioch that 
needed explanation ; and if it was made in the name of General How- 
ard, we called upon him to come up and explain unoflflcially. Some- 
times we wrote to him to come up to the office. 

Question. You did, then, in an official manner, recognize Balloch as dis- 
bursing agent of the Freedmen's Bureau? 

Answer. As I am not head of the office, I would not like to say it was 
official ; I am only a subordinate. 

Question. I would like to have a subordinate's opinion then. 

Answer. Well, when an officer pays a sum of money we are to look 
to him to explain how it was ; Ave would not go to any other officer. 

Question. Did you recognize him as a- disbursing officer — General 
Balloch ? 

Answer. In examining through the accounts before stating them, he 
said he was the disbursing officer, and we took it as such, but I got my 
orders to state it in the name of General Howard as being the responsi- 
ble party, notwithstanding it was paid by General Balloch. 

Question. Were the books changed ! 

Answer. No, sir; nothing was on the books until the settlement was 
made, either debit or credit. . 

Question. In that final statement there is still a balance due by the 
Commissioner to the Treasury ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; the suspensions ; I cannot tell how much for I did 
iiot state the account; it is not closed on the books. 

Question. There is a balance still due by the Commissioner on the 
stated account ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. For suspended vouchers ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Are anj' of these vouchers suj^ended for fraud ? 

Answer. I cannot say that there are. There are vouchers suspended 
because the money was not accounted for. Some vouchers were sus- 
pended for errors and omissions, &c. ; like other vouchers, those were in 
reference to pajing heirs ; the custom was not settled that they had a 
right to pay heirs. 

Question. About what amount is suspended, if you know ? 

Answer. This is only guess-work, because I did not state the account. 
I think the difference was in the neighborhood of six thousand, seven 
thousand, or eight thousand dollars ; and since that, as I said before in 
my testimony, some moneys have come to the credit of General Howard 
which were paid over, which did not come in the last settlement, but 
will come into the next settlement, which will reduce it. It has all come 
to the books as a credit, but not a settlement made yet. It will reduce 
this difference, but what amount I cannot say. 

Question. There is a difference, then, in the final settlement, of six 
thousand or seven thousand dollars ? 



167 

Auswer. We have not made a final settlement. 

Question. A settlement up to the last statement! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Qnei^tion. What you call a statement of difference ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. You do not recollect anything suspended for fraud directly 
charged 1 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Can you tell me when this account will be finally settled? 

Answer. Ko, sir ; I cannot. 

Question. What is your opinion? 

Answer. If General Howard pays up ex^erything there, and we close 
u]) our books so his accounts are closed on the books of the Treasury, 
then it will be a final settlement. If we find anything come up after 
that when any voucher was paid which we admitted, and it was proved 
it was a fraudulent voucher, and the Second Auditor's Ofiice paid it to 
the rightful party, we would theu make a settlement of that particular 
case, and charge General Howard. General Howard would not be an 
exception. We would not treat his case different from anybody else ; 
that is the practice of the office. 

Question. With every officer of the Government ? 

Auswer. Yes, sir. 

Question. You understood that the conclusion of the Second Auditor's 
Office was that General Howard was to be held responsible for all 
moneys disbursed by Balloch and himself and Brown, aud the account 
was so stated "? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was that the judgment or decision made by the Second 
Comptroller? 

Answer. That is my impression. 

Question. That judgment has never been affirmed by any court of 
justice that you know of? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. It is simply a Treasury decision for your guidance"? 

Answer. That is all that 1 know of. 

Question. Did General Balloch render an account, showing that he 
had received aud paid during several years large sums of public money, 
amounting to millions, without any account of further moneys being 
entered upon the books of the Treasury until after the final settlement 
of the Freedmen's Bureau was made up or begun to be made up ? 

Answer. About public money I hardly know how to treat that, 
whether he was not a trustee for these parties, because the Government 
had already paid the motiey out on Treasury certificates, paid by the 
paymaster. The Government funds were all out. After General Howard 
went to the paymaster aud drew the money, he then held it in trust for 
these claimants ; that is my view of it. 

Question. So there was no such account opened against General Bal- 
loch, who had this money in his hands? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Was any such account opened against General Howard ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Was any such account opened in the Second Comptroller's 
Office ? 

Answer. That I cannot say. 

Question. Against either of them 1? 

Answer. That I cannot answer, . ■ 



168 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. If I understand you, the duty of the Second Auditor is. 
primarily to ascertain the correctness of an account stated ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And then, finally, to make a settlement of those accounts 
as adjusted by him and establish a proper charge against the credits re- 
presented by the vouchers ; and he makes inquiry in some other branch 
of the Treasury and gets the amount of proper charges ? 

Answer. All the charges we have against officers in our office are on 
our own books. 

Question. Then I cannot understand your answer to the question of 
General Meigs. 

Answer. Well, these are peculiar. When a claim was presented to 
the Second Auditor's Office for arrears of pay and bounty of colored 
soldiers, and the testimony is examined to see whether they are proper 
parties ; if so, a settlement is made out and a certificate is issued after 
the account has gone to the Seccmd Comptroller and been confirmed. 
Whenjit comes back the certificate, having been made ]>ayable to General 
Howard or order, is sent to him, authorizing the paymaster to i)ay him 
or his order that amount. The money is paid by the paymaster to 
General Howard, and the paymaster, instead of, according to my view» 
treating that as a transfer of money to General Howard, treats it as a 
voucher, as a disbursement, and puts it in his abstract of disbursements; 
therefore, when the paymaster's account comes to the Second Auditor's 
Office for settlement, those are treated by the paymaster's division as 
disbursements, but General Howard is ignored and the charge is not 
raised. The paymaster brings them in on his abstract of disbursements, 
and therefore it is regarded as a credit to the paymaster when it comes 
to the Second Auditor's Office. 

Question. Now will you go on and explain how that ever becomes a 
charge ? 

Answer. It never became a charge until the division of which E am in 
charge took up these accounts to examine them, and then taking up 
General Howard's and General Balloch's accounts current to see wha^ 
he credited the United States with. We test that by going to the pay- 
master's account to see whether his amount of credit to the United 
States agree with the amounts he draws from the paymaster. There is 
no book-account in these cases until this account is settled by the Second 
Auditor and confirmed by the Comptroller and comes back and is stated 
on the books. 

Question. Then an account rests upon pai>ers which may get lost, mis- 
laid or destroyed. 

Answer. There is no danger of their getting lost or mislaid or de- 
stroyed, because we can have access at any time, either to the paymas- 
ter's accounts or our own files. There is no book-account until the 
account comes back from the Comptroller. 

Question. Is there any book-account now in the Second Auditor's 
Office with General Howard ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Under the law of March 29, 1867 t 

Answer. There is an account on the books of the Treasury, in the 
Second Auditor's Office. The book-keeper takes the statement and 
enters it on the books. 

Question. Has done it? 

Answer. Has done it. When he finds a suspension and the money is 
turned over to Captain McMillan. Now we give General Howard credit 



169 

and charge Captain McMillan; tbat goes upon the books. That is the- 
reason that these debits and credits are coming now in favor of General 
Howard and against him. 

Question. Was any such account on the books of the Second Audi- 
tor's Office in the name of General George W. Balloch f 

Answer. As disbursing officer? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. When was this accouut opened in the name of General 
Howard ? 

Answer. When it came back from the Comptroller confirmed ; I can- 
not tell except by looking at the books. 

[Letter N, on page 36, of Exhibit B, shown witness.] 

Question. When did you write his name in your book — charge the 
money to him ? 

Answer. As soon as we ascertained that it was to be made up in the 
name of General Howard ; just before preparing the papers for a state- 
ment to the Comptroller. 

Question. That would be about what date *? 

Answer. I think about the 30th of January, 1873. 

Question, Please refer to letter F, on page 58 of Exhibit B. 

Answer. I signed that letter; those are my initials. 

Question. Did you write that letter ? 

Answer. I cannot say that; I signed it. 

Question. And the statement in your letter, then, I understand to 
have been made from the account that you just referred to ? 

Answer. Yes; that is the statement. 

Question. Whom have you an account with now in the payment of 
bounties ? 

Answer. Captain Mc]\Iillan. 

Question. Did you state an account with Captain McMillan? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Why did you state an accouut with Captain McMillan? 

Answer. Because he draws the money on those certificates from the 
payn)aster and charges in his accouut, disburses the money, paying to the 
legal claimants. We do not charge it until his account comes in ; we 
cannot charge him with that money, because we do not know how much 
money he gets from the paymaster until he renders his account ; but 
we have a test when he does render his account. We get every month a 
statement from the paymaster of the amount he has paid over, and that 
is the test we have, whether he credits the United States with the 
amount he receives, and there is no charge on the books until the ac- 
counts are rendered and stated. 

Question. My question is, whether you keep your accounts in the 
same manner that accounts are kept in the Second Comptroller's Office? 

Answer. 1 don't know how they are kept there. As I understand it, 
but I will not say positively, they only copy our records. 

Question, Then, having the testimony of the Second Comptroller^ 
that he had opened an accouut for all these payments with General 
Balloch, and keeps that account to this day, he can hardly have copied 
your reports, can he ? 

Answer. I do not see how he could, unless he got the papers from 
our office. I don't know where he gets them from ; he certainly cannot 
get the paymaster's account before we settle it and send it to him, nor 
can he get this account until we send it down. 

Question. In their accounts, General Balloch and Major Brown, hav- 



170 

ing ackuowledged the receipt of certain moneys from the. United Stateg 
as paid to them, you have taken that money and put it upon the book 
to General Howard? 

Answer. Put it in General Howard's name; all certificates, as I un- 
derstand it, are made payable to General Howard — Treasury certifi- 
cates. They are all in the name of General Howard. 

By the Court : 

Q. To whom are these Treasury certificates made payable now? 

A. I cannot answer that question : T do not know. That business is 
in another branch of the office. I have not examined the account of 
Captain McMillan. The clerk in my division could tell. 1 have only a 
supervision. I don't know really whether they are paid to Captain Mc- 
Millan or not. 

Q. I would like to know if General Howard could have known dur- 
ing those five years that he had charge of the Bureau, when these ac- 
counts were being rendered by General Balloch, whether he could have 
known from any action of the Treasury Department whether he was to 
be held accountable for these disbursements. 

A. No, I don't tliink be could ; that is my impression ; I don't think 
he could know, because I didn't know myself. The question did not 
come up. 

Examination closed. 

The witness then retired. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If tlie court please, I desire to present 
the matter to the court for its consideration as to the propriety of sum- 
moning certain witnesses. 

On page 2 of Exhibit B the honorable Secretary of War, in his com- 
munication of December 4, 1(S73, to the House of liepresentatives, has 
said : 

The responsibility and accouutability attaching to the late Commissioner, so far as 
now developed, amounts to upward of 1278,573.66, and may be stated under the follow- 
ing headings : 

1. Claimed by colored claimants, who allege that they have not been paid their pay 
and bounty, although the records of the Treasury Department show settlement of 
the claims, and vouchers have been tiled by the late Bureau as evideuce of payment, 
$3^,888.39. 

In this communication the honorable Secretary of War has stated 
that the accountability and responsibility of the accused under this 
head, so far as developed, appears to amount to the sum stated. 

Here is a distinct allegation or charge and may be properly consid- 
ered as one of the charges which Congress, by the act under which this 
cotirt has been instituted, has provided to be " fully investigated." 

Lists of one hundred and seventy-four claimants, mentioned in Ex- 
hibit B, are in evidence before this court as comprising the lists on 
which the honorable Secretary's letter was based. 

The inquiry, therefore, suggests itself, what is the proper course for 
the court to pursue? There can be but little doubt that there were 
frauds perpetrated on many of these one hundred and seventy-four 
claimants, and that they never got their money, but that, nevertheless, 
forged vouchers were filed in the Treasury by General Balloch on ab- 
stracts approved by General Howard, or else genuine vouchers were 
so used where the money was never paid to the claimants. 

I believe, without being able absolutely to demonstrate it, that an 
investigation will show that, in some of these instances, forged vouchers 
or receipts were actually used. 



171 

How far General Howard would be morally responsible for .such a 
state of attairs is not for me to determine. Tluis far it has been elic- 
ited in evidence that a large number of vouchers, covering some thou- 
sands of dollars of alleged expenditures, were found to be fictitious. 
I need instance but the $9,000 (a portion of $31,000 yet to be proven) 
which was turned over to Captain McMillan, and which had not been 
paid claimants when the Bureau was discontinued, but for which vouch- 
ers had actually been filed in the Treasury upward of a year before and 
credit duly claimed and allowed. It may be urged that unless some 
positive and direct im|)lication is proven with reference to General 
Howard, the court ought not to go into the investigation of these one 
hundred and seventy-four cases, because of the expense and delay, and 
because of the difiiculty in finding the claimants and identifying them. 

To this I, respectfully, reply that, in the administration of justice, the 
consideration of delay and expense is immaterial; and as to difficulty 
of finding claimants, non-success would result necessarily in favor of the 
accused. These clainumts, if unlawfully deprived of their bounties, are 
entitled to immediate payment, and the Government has no right, 
because its agents may have acted wrongfully, to deprive the claimants 
of their just dues until, forsooth, Government may by criminal or 
civil suit against the agents punish them or recover the money. Hence 
I assume that this court has been specially instituted as a basis to 
determine whether these claimants have been defrauded, and, if so, who 
is the responsible offender. 

Again, it may be suggested that some other tribunal should investi- 
gateas to whether or not frauds had been committed on any or all of 
these one hundred and seventy-four claimants, and that it is only the 
duty of this honorable court to say what measure of responsibility shall 
attach to General Howard upon the determination of such investigation 
that frauds had been committed. 

But how can the honorable court come to such a conclusion, wh(n 
an examination of some or many of the one hundred and seventy-four 
claimants may show (I do not speak from knowledge) that he, General 
Howard, was informed by them at an early day that they had not re- 
ceived their money, or only part of it, and that he took no action 
towards redressing them ; or, again, that he was warned against par- 
ticular sub-agents, and still continued to intrust them with large sums. 
The question oi" moral responsibility here comes in, Mr. Harmon, chief 
of the investigation division. Second Auditor's Office, has sworn that 
about eighty -five of these cases have assumed such "definite form" as 
to fraud or wrong as to recpiire them to be sent for prosecution or suit 
to the Attorney-General. It appears m the Henderson case tliat the 
soldier was actually cheated out of his money by an agent of the Bureau. 
The case of Aaron Bess, stamliug on the Treasury books as paid by 
General Howard January L'3, 1872, is another case in point. It has been 
already elicited that both General Howard and General Balloch have 
received acknowledgment, from the Treasury, of the final settlement 
and closing of their accounts, and yet these two cases of Henderson 
and Bess, as mere sample cases, stand on the Treasury books as claims 
paid by Generals Balloch and Howard res[)ectively. 

A peculiar feature of this whole matter is the rule adopted in the 
Treasury Department as to frauds discovered after settlementof accounts. 
I have here the opinion of Treasury officials on that matter ; I give it 
simply as an opinion, and not in evidence of the facts. The Second 
Auditor of the Treasury, on the 10th of January, 1874, delivered an 
opinion which, as showing the views of the accounting officers of the 



172 

Treasury called on to act in an official capacity, is pertinent in this con- 
nection. The opinion is in the form of a letter, dated January 10, 1874^ 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, and is as follows : 

Sir : I am in receipt of the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, addressed to 
you on the 3d instant, and referred by you to this office on the 7th instant, in which 
attention is invited to the item on page 8, Executive Document No. 10, H. R., "due 
colored claimants, 174 cases, $33,888.39," and request made that "if the accounts 
have already been settled on the books of the Treasury, the same may be at once re- 
ferred," &c. 

I return herewith the letter of the honorable Secretary of War and Executive Docu- 
ment No. 10, H. R., and beg to state tliat the accounts referred to were returned to this 
office on the 7th instant, as settled and confirmed by the Second Comptroller of the 
Treasury. 

Regarding the item on page 8, " due colored claimants, 174 cases, $33,888.39," I have 
to state that complaints in 175 or more cases have been received at tliis office, in which 
it is alleged that the claimants have not received the money represented as having 
been paid upon the vouchers of the disbursing officer of the late Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen, and Abaiuloned Lands. These cases represent an aggregate amount of 
$30,000 or more; but as most of the complaints were presented after the examination 
of the disbursing officei''s accounts had been far advanced, and as the amounts alleged 
to have been fraudulently paid upon the vouchers could be determined onlj^ by some 
systematic or judicial investigation, it was not deemed advisable to arrest the exami- 
nation of the accounts, but to let such amounts become the subject of a special charge 
after they were definitely ascertained and the true character of the vouchers deter- 
mined. 

From the evidence now before me there can be no doubt of the falsity of some of 
these vouchers; but as the complainants have received their money in some cases, and 
consequently made their complaints under a misapprehension of the facts, and as, in 
other instances, they have received a portion of the amounts due them, and as com- 
plaints are still being received requiring investigation, it will readily be observed that 
no certain amount could possibly have been fixed upou to disallow or make now the 
subject of a special charge. As fast as these complaints assume definite form the cases 
are transmitted to the War Department and Department of Justice for such action as 
the facts require. 

As matters have recently transpired requiring an adilitional settlement with the dis- 
bursing officer, permit me to suggest that it may not be best to re-open the settlement 
as now made, but to raise a charge in the additional settlement of the amounts which 
lurther action and developments may determine as having been falsely represented to 
have been paid." 

The Third Auditor, Mr. Rutherford, g^ave an opiuion to the Secretary 
of the Treasury, of date January 14,1874, on the subject of accounts 
falliug within his jurisdictiou. He said : 

" The honorable the Secretary of War adds : ' If the accounts have already been set- 
tled on the books of the Tieasury, I have the honor to request that, in view of the 
facts set forth in the inclosed document, the same may be at once re^jipened.' 

'■ In reply to the first request of the Secretary of War, I have the honor to state that 
all the accounts of the disbursmg officers of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and 
Abandoned Lands, embracing the payments referred to in said Ex. Doc. No. 10, H. R., 
have been audited in this office, referred to the Second Comptroller for official action, 
and by him confirmed and returned to this office as correct. 

" And, in reply to the second request of the Secretary of War, I have the honor to state 
that it has never been the custom of the accounting officers to re-open an account offi- 
cially closed, unless upon errors in the official statements subsecjuently discovered, or 
upon good and sufficient evidence that certain specified vouchers have been fraudulently 
paid. As no errors in the official statements have been pointed out, and no intimation 
or charge of fraud lias been raised in Ex. Doc. No. 10 against the vouchers upon which 
the payments referred to were based, I cannot see the necessity, nor do I deem it advis- 
able, for this office, to re-open the accounts referred to. 

" I shall at all times, however, be ready and willing to re-open those accounts, or any 
others, whenever the good and sufficient evidence is furnished that frauds have been 
committed, or fraudulent vouchers paid in any case." 

These views were concurred in by the Second Comptroller on the 16th 
of January, 1874. Mr. Brodhead returned each of these communica- 
tions to the Secretary of the Treasury as follows : 

" The views of the Second and Third Auditors, as expressed in the accompanying re- 
ports in regard to re-oi)ening the accounts of the disbursing officers of the late Bureau 



173 

Kefngees, Freednien, and Abandoned Lauds arc correct. The correction of discovered 
errors in the accounts of disbursing officers is usually made, not by cauc(.'ling settle- 
ments already approved and of record, but by supplementary settlements in which all 
items found to be improperly credited are recharged to the officers, and vice versa. 
This can readily and properly be done in the case in question, whenever the evidence 
and facts presented shall seem to require it." 

Which the honorable Wm. A. Kiohardson, Secretary of the Treasury, 
approved ia a couiiminication to the honorable Secretary of War on 
January 17, 1874, stating his opinion. He said: 

" In compliance with your request of the .3d instant, asking to be informed at my 
earliest convenience whether certain accounts, of the disbursing officers of the late 
Bureau Refugees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands have been settled, and if so, to have 
the same re-opened, I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of the reports of the 
Second and Third Auditors, and the Second Comptroller, in whose views as to the ad- 
visableness of the adjustment by supplementary settlement, rather than by re-oneniiig 
settlements already made and approved, of any discrepancies and errors existing in the 
accounts of the officers referred to, I fully concur." 

What is good and sufficient evidence required in the Auditor's Office? 
The Auditors, or Second Comptroller, cannot summon witnesses, or 
compel their attendance for examination under oath. One hundred and 
seventy-four cases were reported to the honorable Secretary of War, 
aggregating $33,888.39, and Congress orders a court to investigate 
fully. For what purpose, if not to decide whether or not in the opinion 
of the court tliose men have been actually defrauded, and whether or 
not General Howard is responsible, technically, legall}^, or morally? 
For a mere abstract question of law, if that was all that was involved 
here, I submit that the Attorney General, from his peculiar duties, im- 
posed by statute, could have readily answered it. 

I appreheiul that Congress and the country desired all the facts to 
l)e developed and fully investigated. Thus, in this case, three points 
arise : 

1st. Were the one hundred and seventy-four claimants actually de- 
frauded ? 

2d. Who rendered the accounts to the Treasury, and was reponsible 
by law therefor? 

3d. Did the officer charged with the safe custody and faithful dis- 
bursement of this $33,888.39 do his whole duty in the premises ? for, if 
he did not, then he would, I presume, be morally responsible. 

Great difficulty arises in the determination of these points, from the 
fact that the Commissioner transacted all payments, as if made here in 
Washington. These colored soldiers were the quasi wards of tbe Gov- 
ernment, and the act of March 29, 1867, seems to have been intended 
for their protection. In their payment, the central figure is General 
Howard ; all money passed through his hands to his agents, and only 
his name, and General Balloch's and Major Brown's, appeared in the ac- 
counts. If the evidence elicited here should be sufficient to show that the 
one hundred and seventy-four claimants had been defrauded, and the 
court should thus express its opinion, would not the Treasury Depart- 
ment consider such testimony and opinion as good and sufficient evi- 
dence for re-opening the accounts and charging the Droper individual 
therefor ? 

One thing is certain — if these one hundred and seventy-four claimants 
have been defrauded, Government must make the loss good, and look 
to its agent whom it employed, and to whom it gave the money to make 
these payments for reimbursement. 

If any of these one hundred and seventy-four have not received "their 
money, the expenditure of which has been claimed in the Treasury by 



174 

General Howard, or liis subordinates acting under his supervision, cer- 
tainly, in the language of Exhibit B, p. S, the late Conimit^sioner is 
entitled to a determinate investigatiou of some kind before the ques- 
tion of accountability is 'finally passed upon. 

As the court in this case is required to discover whether any offense 
has been committed, and to give its opinion on the facts found^ accord- 
ing to the usual custom of courts of incpiiry, I presume the court will 
give an opinion whether or not General Howard is technically, mor- 
ally, or legally responsible for such offenses. 

The court, under the act instituting it, must, therefore, I respect- 
fully submit, first discover whether any offenses have been committed, 
and*^ then decide whether General Howard is or was responsible there- 
for. 

In this view, T, respectfully, move for a rule, and that under the 74tli 
article of war and 27tli section of the act approved March 3, 1863, and 
to save expense, the court direct interrogatories by the judge-advocate, 
and cross-interrogatories by the accused, to be prepared and sent to the 
respective Department commanders where the claimants may reside, 
through the War Department, with a request to the honorable Sec- 
retary of War, that officers of the Army may be detailed to discover and 
identify the claimants, and take them before the nearest public officer 
authorized to administer oaths, with a view to taking the depositions of 
claimants on such interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, and to ob- 
tain from the civil officer or officers administering the oaths the usual 
and proper authentication. 

The accused said, (through his counsel :) This is a motion asking 
the War Department to create a commission to taketestimony of claim- 
ants as to the fact whether they were paid, or not, ui)on which the offi- 
cer accused has a right to submit cross-interrogatories. We say at the 
outset, no court in Christendom would condemn any man upon the sole 
evidence of the party interested. If the motion is made broad enough 
to take sufficient testimony to ])rove the fact, we have no objection. 
But to confine it simply to the testimony of the applicant, we would as 
lief he would put in his affidavit without going through the machinery 
of a commission. 

The Judge-Advocate said: I will accept the suggestion of the coun- 
sel for the accused. I am willing to incorporate as a part of the inotiou 
that the officer or officers detailed for the purpose of administering 
these interrogatories and cross-interrogatories, shall take such other tes- 
timony bearing upon each and all of the cases as will elicit the informa- 
tion desired by direct interrogatories and cross-interrogatories to be pre- 
pared here. 

The court then, at 3 o'clock and 40 minutes, adjourned until to-morrow 
at 11 o'clock a. m. 



EIGHTEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 
Wa.slmigton, D. C, Thursday, April 2, 1874 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 



175 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Qiiartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, third Cavalry, [J. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The last witness, John M. Sims, pronounced his testimony to be cor- 
rect as recorded. 

At the close of the reading of the minutes, the counsel for the accused 
said : In relation to the statement ot record in the remarks of the judge- 
advocate yesterday with regard to the manner of testifying upon the 
part of the witness, George W. Balloch, I wish to call the attention of 
the court to a statement in the record just read, made by the judge- 
advocate. I did intend to express the hope that some member of 
the court would move to strike it from the record. I heard it when it 
was made, but had no idea that it was going upon the record. It is the 
statement that General Balloch was not very clear in his recollection 
about other payments, but was perfectly certain about the payments of 
retained bounty ; the fact being that in one case he relied u^Don recollec- 
tion, and in the other case he had the record before him. It is not iu 
accordance with my recollection and understanding of the testimony. 
But since considering the matter, I have taken a different view of ray 
duty in the premises ; if the court chooses to allow the organ of the 
court, speaking for the court, to impugn the motives of witnesses under 
examination, it seems to me it is rather the business of the court to look 
out for that matter than it is for the counsel. 

Upon the pending motion and request of the judge-advocate for a 
rule for his guidance in the matter of the 174 claimants, the counsel for 
the accuse<l then said : 

May it please the court : The record of yesterday shows that I said 
that, with certain modifications of the motion then made, we should 
make no objection to it. That statement was made by me upon an un- 
derstanding common among lawyers, that when amotion is made under 
a particular act or i)rovision of law, it is made in conformity with the 
act or provision of law ; and therefore this admission was made sup- 
posing that the law and the act recited gave the court the authority to 
create such a commission. As I find it did not, and that admission was 
made under a misunderstanding, I wish to have it withdrawn. 

I find now that the 74th article of war, which has been by act of Con- 
gress made a law, provides that, " On the trials of cases not capital be- 
fore courts-martial, the deposition of witnesses not in the line or staff 
of the Army may be taken before some justice of the peace and read 
in evidence ; provided the prosecutor and person accused are present at 
the taking of the same or are duly notified thereof." 

The act approved March 3, 1863, referred to in the motion, provides 
" that depositions of witnesses residing beyond the limits of the State, 
Territory, or District in which military courts shall be ordered to sit, 
may be taken in cases not capital, by either party and read in evidence, 
provided the same shall be taken upon reasonable notice to the opposite 
party, and duly authenticated." 

It will be observed that the later statute makes no difference, sub- 
stantially, in the manner in which this testimony is to be taken ; it is to 



176 

be taken before some justice of the peace where both the parties inter- 
ested are present. Now, with regard to this matter, here is a statement 
of fact which I have reduced to writing so as to have it explicit : 

General Howard is accused by the War Department of responsibility 
for $33,000 of claims, by one hundred and seventy-four persons, all of 
which sum has been paid, but more or less is supposed to have been paid 
to the wrong persons. There is no charge of fraud or dishonesty on the 
part of General Howard in this transaction. The Treasury Department, 
whose sole duty it is to charge officers with pecuniary responsibility, do 
not charge this $33,000 against General Howard. The War Depart- 
ment volmiteers to compel the Treasury Department to charge this sum 
against General Howard, and to that end moves this court to take tes- 
timony to show that more or less of the $33,000 has been paid by Gen- 
eral Howard to the wrong parties. That is the statement upon which 
this motion is predicated. 

Now we stand in this position before the court : that this is a trial in 
which General Howard has to be exonerated not only by this court, 
but before the public and the whole country ; and we are placed, 
therefore, in a delicate position, because, if we object to any mode of 
investigation, it may seem that we are attempting to shut out knowl- 
edge which might have been obtained upon these transactions. There- 
fore we are reluctant to make any objection of the sort, and put our- 
selves entirely in the hands of the court in that respect. 

But we think it our duty to make certain suggestions to the court for 
their consideration, and the first is as to the way in which this testi- 
mony could be taken fairly. The motion contemplates a roving commis- 
sion, or several commissions, to operate at the same time in different 
places. The rules of the Supreme Court and of the courts of the United 
States invaribly provide that testimony shall not be taken upon depo- 
sitions in two phices at the same time, for the reason that the party or 
parties interested have a right to be present wherever testimony is 
taken for or against them. Therefore there would seem an injustice in 
a commission going out to different points and taking testimony at the 
same time. 

Then if this testimony is thus taken in what I concede to be a proper 
manner, as it is the invariable manner of courts, General Howard will 
be obliged to go in person to attend to it or to employ counsel ; and that 
would necessarily involve an expense which General Howard is unable, 
as well as unwilling, to bear. 

There is another consideration : how much expense to the Government 
and what time would be occupied in taking this testimony. Here are 
174 distinct cases. In each of these cases tlie claimant should be sum- 
moned; and as to each witness, he would require for his identification one 
or two other persons. General Howard would have a right to the testi- 
mony of the person, commonly an officer or one who has been an officer, 
who made the actual payment. He would be entitled to the testimony 
of that officer's clerk ; and probably one or two other witnesses would be 
examined ; so that you coukl hardly count upon less than six witnesses 
in every instance of one of these claims. You know very well that 
it costs something to have a witness, and to have, particularly, six wit- 
nesses, some the former agents of General Howard, who are now scat- 
tered over the United States, most of them in the Northern States. I 
reckon, then, for the expenses of the witnesses in each one of these 
cases $500, and that the whole expense would exceed $100,000 for wit- 
ness-fees ; and for time, I think it may be considered that it would be a 



177 

diligent use of time to take the testimony in one case per day, and that 
would consume over six months. 

Now, suppose that testimony all to be taken at the expense, say, of 
$100,000; what would be the result! From the appearance of the 
papers submitted it might be fairly believed that there would be shown 
to have been wrong payments to the aiuouut of $15,000, in the jiropor- 
tion that the formal papers or cases bear to the informal. There would 
be an accountability upon the evidence against General Howard of 
$15,000 at an expense to the Government of $100,000. 

Then what would be the result of that f According to the testimony 
adduced, the account of General Howard would be restated and that 
amount would be charged against him. Then what would follow! 
Upon the testimony of the Second Comptroller that amount, restated 
and recharged, would be canceled upon proof upon the part of General 
Howard that he had exercised due diligence and care in making these 
payments. Then the conclusion would be that the Government, at an 
expense of $100,000, had caused to be made a charge against General 
Howard of $15,000, which upon the production of proof of diligence and 
care he could have canceled and discharged. 

There is another consideration. If there is any linbility upon the 
]>art of General Howard, it arises from his neglect of his proper duty. 
Upon this point the testimony is mostly to be derived from his adjutant- 
general, inspector-general, his aids, his disbursing officers; only one of 
these has been called so far, and his testimony" has not been completed, 
and he has not been cross-examined at all. 

Now, following the whole is this: Should not the testimony upon this 
question of negligence be heard, not only upon the part of the Govern- 
ment, but upon the part of the accused, before the Government is put 
to the great expense of taking testimony which may finally prove to 
be unnecessary ? 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, I simply wish to 
say that yesterday I made an amendment to the motion which I pre- 
sented for the consideration of the court on the understanding that it 
was meeting the views of the accused. Of course I now withdraw that 
amendment and leave the motion as it stood. But I also respectfully 
submit to the court the propriety of making a rule for my guidance in 
the summoning of witnesses ; whether under this first charge of one 
hundred and seventy-four clainmnts not having received their money, 
testimony shall be taken for the afitirmative by interrogatories on due 
notice here as is the usual practice in military courts, varying somewhat 
in that respect, probably, from courts of civil jurisdiction of the United 
States, or that a rule may be entered that the witnesses may be sub- 
poenaed and brought here to testify orally. I suggest it for the consid- 
eraton of the court. I desire something for my ^'guidance under that 
head. It is for that object that I have presented the matter to the atten- 
tion of the court; not that I desire to go into that lengthy examination, 
for I should very gladly avoid it if possible. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation, and, upon the doors 
being re-opened, the court, at 3.30 p. m., adjourned until to-morrow, at 
11 o'clock a. m. 

12 H c 



178 



NINETEENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 181G F Street, 

Washinf/fon, I>. C, April 3, 1874—11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present : 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. 0. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eevnolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate U. S. A., judge-advocate j 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

After the reading. 

The Judge Advocate said : The decision of the court made yester- 
day, but not announced in consequence of the immediate adjournment 
of the court when the doors were re-opened, is as follows, on the motion 
that was made for a rule : 

The court thinks it unnecessary at this time to take depositions or sum- 
mon witnesses in the 174 cases noted on page 2 of Exhibit B. 

Hon. Ezra B, French then appeared before the court, and in the 
presence of the accused was re-examined as follows : 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. What paper is that which you hold in your hand f 

Answer. This is a voucher of Preston Barrett, private of Company A, 
One hundredth Eegiment United States Colored Troops, acknowledging 
the receipt of $90 in full for bounty, as per Treasury certificate No. 
577G92, after deducting attorney's fees for collection. The receipt is 
dated Washington, D. C., January 20, 1872 ; the money is received from 
O. O. Howard, U. S. A., Commissioner. 

The paper w^ts read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit Y*, there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused. 

Question. Who has claimed or taken credit at the Treasury for this 
sum! 

Answer. General Howaixl ; it is in his account for disbursements 
during the time when he made his own disbursements for the Bureau. 

Question. The abstract that accompanied this was signed and ap- 
proved by whom ? 

Answer. Signed and approved by General Howard. 

Question. What is that document that you hold in your hand ? 

Answer. This is a receipt from Cecelia Mattingly, mother of Davii 
Miles, deceased, late sergeant of Company G, One hundred and twenty- 
fifth Regiment United States Colored Troops, dated 21st of November, 
1871, acknowledging the receipt from O. O. Howard, U. S. A., Commis- 



179 

sioner, of $325.6G in full for arrears of pay and bounty as per Treasury 
certificate 5G8912, deducting attorney's fees for collection. 

Eead to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked Ex- 
hibit Z^, there being uo objection on the part of the accused. 

Question. Did any abstract accompany that voucher ? 

Answer. Yes ; that is one of the vouchers paid by the abstract for 
the month of November, approved by General Howard, and signed by 
him. 

Question. Who has taken credit for this sum at the Treasury? 

Answer. General Howard. 

Question. Look at a paragraph in the rei)ort of Major Vincent ou 
page 55 of Exhibit B, which speaks of the cases of claimants being re- 
terred to you. Do you know what action was taken by your Office ou 
that subject ? 

Answer. The matter has been examined at various times ; complaints 
have been made about it. We have had communications with the War 
Department. I tiiid here a letter from the Second Auditor's Office, 
dated April 10, 1873, addressed to the Secretary of War by myself. 

The letter was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit A-, there being no objection on the part of the 
accused. 

Question. Do 30U know whether any action was taken on this com- 
munication of yours in the War Department? 

Answer. Yes; there was action taken, and also, 1 think, in the De- 
p.Trtment of Justice. 1 had a conference with the Secretary of War, 
and also with the Solicitor-General, Bristow, of the Department of Jus- 
tice. 

Question. Who was officiating as Secretary of War at that time ? 

Answer. I think the present Secretary was; 1 know I had interviews 
with him ; as many as two. 

(Question. Do you know what is the present state of the accounts of 
O. C. French, late an agent of the Bureau in your Office ". 

Answer. 1 am unable to state the exact amount. I have not the 
minutes with me, but since the settlement of the account in my Office, 
this account-current of Ca]>t. James McMillan, Third Artillery, chief 
disbursing officer of the Freediuen's branch of the Adjutant-General's 
Office, has been received, [witness produces paper,] in which he takes up 
the sum in round numbers of $3,000 as received from Koonan, one of 
the sureties of O. C. French, late agent and disbursing officer, and for 
which General Howard would be entitled to credit. 

By the Court : 

Question. Aginst whom would you have proceeded in the case referred 
to in your letter to the Secretary of War, presented to-day, if that mat- 
ter had been left to your Office ? Would you have proceeded against 
General Howard, or against the agents who had directl3' commited the 
frauds upon the claimants ? 

Answer. 1 know that the intention at the time was to reach the guilty 
parties, if possible ; and our consultations were in reference to what 
should be done to Kunkle, to prosecute him, through the Attorney-Gen- 
eral's Office, through the Department of Justice, and other men down 
in that region who had been guilty of fraudulent conduct. Some of these 
claims require judicial investigation. It was impossible that we could 
state that frauds had absolutely been committed, but we had reason to 
believe that they had. It could only be ascertained by some judicial 
inquiry, which we were not i^repared to have, and the only question was 



180 

whotlier the War Dcpai tnicnt would take tlie ro.spoiisibility of niovinj>- 
ill this matter upon evidence to be furnished tbrou^li the Treasury to 
the War Department, that should be the intermediate department 
between the Treasury and the Department of Justice, or whether the 
Treasuiy should move directly throu<4li the ])epartment of Justice in 
attempting to prosecute. That letter (Exhibit A^) was written witli 
reference to that matter to ascertain what was reg'arded as the better 
course to be taken. 

(»)uestion. I only asked the question to ascertain whether it was the 
puri)ose of your Ofiice to have i)ioceeded against the Commissioner as 
being res])oiisible for all those frauds, or against the persons w ho had 
committed the frauds? 

Answer. The idea had not arisen, I am sure, at that time. 

(Question. To prosecute (leneral Howard ? 

Answer. Ko, sir ; the idea of prosecuting General Howard had not 
arisen, and was not entertained at all by us at that time. 

Question. When a white soldier alleges, formally or iuforinally, that 
he has not received his dues under the laws, what is the course pursued 
in order to insure a final settlement in such case ? Please state details 
fully. 

Answer. If the first notice we receive is an alitidavit, setting forth the 
facts specifically, and setting forth his complaint specifically, giving the 
facts, we immediately jirepare a statement for prosecution. Years ago, 
our practice was to address them directly to the district attorney of the 
district in which the parties resided, asking him to investigate, and if 
he found that there was just cause, to commence a prosecution. Our ob- 
ject was to recover the money, and get it into the hands of the right 
■party. 

Question. Civil or criminal i)rosecution ? 
- Answer. Criminal, where the tw o years had not elapsed ; if the two 
years had elapsed, so we could not i)roceed criminally against the 
parties, then he was requested to recover the money in an}^ way that he 
saw fit; and a great many, under the belief that they were still crimi- 
nally liable, paid over the money. In that way we have recovered 
something over $100,000. That was before the establishment of the 
Department of Justice. Now we communicate with the Solicitor of the 
Treasury, as the ofticer of the Department of Justice, and through him 
the business is transacted in the same way as it was before. Where a let- 
ter of complaint comes, the party is notified that we must have the facts 
more specific, have them properly authenticated, requiring the affidavit 
of the party. When that is received, if it a])i)ears to afford sufdcient 
ground for a ])roceeding, then a transcript of the case is made and 
tiansmitted to the Solicitor. 

(Question. Su])pose the payment belongs to B, and is paid ver to A, 
how do you ju'oceed !? 

Answer. Proceed against the criminal i)arty, if we can find him, 
wherever he may be ; sometimes we proceed against the witness, where 
the case was a fraudulent one altogether, \Yhere the witness certified 
that the ap])licant was the proper man, the true soldier, and identitied 
him, and we find it was false, then we proceed against the witness as 
well as against the party who received the money. Vie have the drag- 
net large enough to catch all the parties. 

Question. Is there any reason why the same course should not be 
l)ursued with colored soldiers who allege, either formally or informally 
that they have not received their lawful dues, as is pursued with white, 
soldiers similarly circumstanced'? 



181 

Answer. Yes; there are reasous. The cases are dissimilar in this: 
that the colored soldiers and their heirs were regarded as sort of wards 
of the Government, and in the case of white soldiers we never thonght 
of proceeding against the paymaster who paid the certificate. To us 
the disbursing officers were regarded as responsible, because, by the 
resolution of JNEarch 2S), 18G7, tbey were required to identify, where it 
was difficult to identify, before making the payment, and in that way 
were rcs[)onsible for their action. 

Question. By "disbursing officer" there, you mean the man who paid 
the currency to the claimant 1 

Answer. Yes, sir; the nature of the. com])laint8 and facts connected 
with them presented entirely a different case from what was piesented 
in the case of white soldiers. Before any steps were taken in this 
matter we had evidence whicli was quite satisfactory, that some of the 
disbursing agents who had furnished to the Department vouchers for 
the payment of mouey which they had disbursed had procured those 
vouchers without having paid the money at all ; that in some instances 
(I will state the case of Bunkle) a man had been employed to take those 
vouchers in advance of payment, had huuteel up the claimants, secured 
their signature to the voucher and to the receipts under the statement 
to them that it was necessary to the final settlement of their claims, and 
that within a short period thereafter they would receive the money; 
that those vouchers were returned to Major liunkle, and by him sent 
on with his abstract of disbursements and forwarded to the Treasury, 
and an allowance made for payments supposed to have been made by 
the papers furnished. 

(Question. Credits ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; the complaints showed that this had been done, 
and that no money had been paid. 1 have the matter more clearly in 
ray mind than any other individual, because it was in view of prosecut- 
ing him more particularly than General Burbridge or any of the other 
men who appeared to be involved in it, that 1 had my interviews with 
the Secretary of War and the Solicitor-General of the Department of 
Justice. 

Question. Cannot, then, the 174 cases referred to on page 8, Exhibit 
B, before this court, be in due time lawfully settled like other cases :^ 

Answer. I have no doubt that they can be; but there is greater difficulty 
in obtaining satisfactory evidence on which to base the adjustment, and, 
therefore, it would seem as though some judicial action should be had 
in the matter to ascertain really whether any fraud had been committed, 
and if so, upon whom ; because a great many have complained who, I 
have reason to believe, had no just cause for complaint. 

Question. Please state what were the rules for i)ayment of bounty to 
soldiers, both white and colored, previous to March 29, 18G7 ? 

Answer. There was no distinction ; certificates were issued to the 
colored soldier or to his heirs the same as in the case of the white soldier. 
Those certificates were sent to the attorney who prosecuted the claim, 
and he obtained the money from the Paymaster General, or from any 
paymaster of the United States Army. 

Question. Who, then, was responsible for erroneous or fradulent pay- 
ments, and how was such a responsibility, if any, enforced ? 

Answer. There was never any enforcement that I know of beyond 
what would be required of a paymaster using care and diligence in 
making his payments. Usually these attorneys would have a power of 
attorney executed apparently by the soldier or by his heir, and if there 
was a i^rima-facie case made out to the paymaster, he paid the money; 



182 

l3ut I have reason to believe that iu a large class of cases the money did 
not get to the claimant, and I will say here that that was one of the 
reasons why the resolution ot March 29, 1807, was conceived and pro- 
cured to be passed. 

Question. In the interest of the negroes? 

Answer. In their interest. 

Question. Have yon known of any cases in which a paymaster has 
been prosecuted for frauds in paying bounties ? 

Answer. Never. 

Question. In speaking of the Runkle case, and the reasons for writing 
this letter, you state that vouchers appear to have been obtained — re- 
ceipted vouchers — and filed in the Treasury, in cases in which no pay- 
ments had been made at all. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. From what 1 have seen in the course of this examination it 
appears to me that that is just what has happened in every case, whether 
the man was paid or not; the voucher was procured by some agent and 
returned to General Balloch, and filed in the Treasury as soon as he had 
sent the check to pay it ; the payment he considered made when he sent 
out his check to liunkle, although the payment to the claimant might 
not take place for a year, with every reasonable effort to find him. So 
that, as you have stated the Ilunkle case, and your reasons for acting, 
it appears to me there were just the same reasons in every case. 

Answer. But this did not apply to paymasters of the Army. I never 
have known a ease of a fraudulent pa;\ment where the paymaster him- 
self had been guilty of a fraud and obtained a voucher without paying 
over the money. They have sometimes paid under circumstances where 
we have felt justified in making a stoppage against the paymaster for 
paying a wrong party, paying carelessh', paying without taking a proper 
powei' of attorney, paying over to an attorney without taking proper 
power of attorney, showing authority from the claimant to the attorney 
to receipt for the money, because the Government was not furnished 
with a proper voucher. Sometimes a paymaster would be careless and 
pay to an attorney, who would sign the receipt as attorney for the party, 
without at the same time furnishing evidence that he was the attorney 
and had authority for the settlement of the claim, as the law required, 
for the claimant to receipt for and receive the money. 

Question. I asked my question with reference to oi)erations in the 
Freedmen's Bureau alone; the fact being that General Balloch claimed 
credit as soon as he filed the receipted vouchers, and he himself had 
sent out the check, and before the negro soldier got his money in a 
great many cases. He was in the same position as in the Eunkle case. 
So far as you have stated, you do not state there was evidence of fraud 
on the part of Runkle. The reasons you gave would apply to nearly all 
the cases — all credits, it seems to me. 

Answer. The statements went to show that the money had all been 
sent to Runkle; that Runkle had it iu his hands at that time. The 
money had been sent out with a statement of the cases that the money 
was intended to cover, and that statement gave the post-office address 
of each one of these people. He then would send an agent to those 
several addresses given, and procure a voucher from them 'under the 
false statement that it was necessary to perfect the case, and that in a 
very short time they would get their money. 

Question. Was it not necessary that they should sign these vouchers 
before they got their money — a good while before they got their moneyj 
in order to get it ? 



183 

Answer. Not if the mouey was iu the hands of the disbursing officer. 
It was his business to identify the party himself, and pay the mouey 
himself to the party. 

Question. But I do not understand the money was ever iu the hands 
of liunkle, or only after he sent the receipted vouchers here? 

Answer. I do not know what the fact is; I only know that those 
statements were made, and we had evidence in our possession showing 
that fact as a basis of the action which I took. 

Question. What species of Judicial action do you contemplate should 
be taken in the matter of colored claimants wlio allege they have not 
received their money ? 

Answer. I had supposed it would be a suit against the officer charged 
with the disbursement of the ])articular money in the case; a civil 
suit, as the criminal law had, apparently, kindly relieved him of crim- 
inal prosecution. 

Question. Do you mean the sub-agent? 

Answer. I mean the sub-agent of the Freedmen's Bureau who was 
charged with tlie disbursement of that money. 

Question. Who was required to place the money in the hands of the 
negro— the last recipient of the funds ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. If a paymaster would make a payment to a person falsely 
representing himself to be the claimant whose account had been allowed, 
how would such paymaster be relieved for such erroneous payment ? 

Answer. If the officer appeared to have exercised due care and dili- 
gence iu the matter, and had been deceived by fraudulent parties, he 
would be relieved, as a matter of course, having done his duty. 

Question. Kelieved by whom ? 

Answer. Relieved by the accounting officers in settling his accounts 
by the Second Comptroller. 

Question. They would simj/iy give him credit ? 

Answer. Give him credit. 

Question. And leave the true claimant to do what? 

Answer. Leave the true claimant to apply to the Government, and 
then we would try and prosecute the party who had committed the 
fraud. If we succeeded in getting the money from him, very well ; if 
not, we paid the man who ought to have been first paid. 

Question. You consider the Auditor and the Comptroller vested with 
legal power to settle with faithful agents? 

Answer, Yes, sir. 

Question. Under what law or authority ? 

Answer. With the permission of the court, 1 prefer to reduce my 
answer to writing, and at the next session of the court will be prepared 
to give it. 

Question. Did the views entertained in your Office contemplate any 
further prosecution, in case nothing could be made out of the agent to 
whose hands the actual disbursement had been intrusted ? 

Answer. Xo ; we had never contemplated anything beyond that. The 
question has never arisen. 

Question. It has been testified that no entries in the books of the 
Treasury were made, in the nature of an account stated against General 
Howard, until some time in 1872. How is this ? 

Answer. The accounts, up to October 11, 1871, were rendered in the 
name of General Balloch ; from October 11, 1871, to the 5th of February, 
1872, General Howard made disbursements and rendered accounts in 
his own name. After that Major Brown was the disbursing officer, and 



184 

rendered bis accounts, iu his own name, to the Treasury. Tlie settle- 
ments were made iu my Office, iu the first place, while the thing was 
progressing. The settlement of General Howard's account was made, 
and we were proceeding with the settlement of Major Brown's and 
General Balloch's accounts, when we received instructions from the 
Second Comptroller to state the entire account iu General Howard's 
name, and it was so stated. General Howard was supposed to be re- 
sponsible, pecuniarily, in my Office, only as he had disbursed money 
himself, and that settlement was made and reported to the Comptroller 
from my Office, without any suspensions against him. 

Question. (Kepeated.) 

Answer. I have already stated that then it was under the instruc- 
tion of the Second Comptroller; it was after we had settled General 
Howard's disbursing account, and while we were at work upon General 
Balloch's account. 

Question. Keferring to that period when General Ploward disbursed 
his own money f 

Answer. Yes. I settled that account and reported it to the Second 
Comptroller. 

Question. Then you say it was necessary to embrace them all in one ? 

Answer. The Comptroller was of the opinion that it Avould be neces- 
sary to embrace them all iu one, and gave directions to that effect, and 
then it was done and a new account was stated, as against General 
Howard. That was the act of the Comptroller, and not of the Auditor. 

Question. Were or not the ordinary " statements of differences" in 
the accounts of General Howard furnished him from time to time from 
18(J0 to 1872 ? 

Answer. I could not state as to that fact. My impression is, however, 
that the " statements of differences " were only furnished to the dis- 
bursing officer. 

Question. Please look at page 8, Exhibit B, jiart 2d, and say whether 
or not the sum of $1,338.50, mentioned in George W. Ballocli's letter 
of January 3, 1874, as an expenditure for the "re-imbursemeut for double 
payments of bounties," was expended on an,y decision of the Treasury 
Department under the authority you have before mentioned. 

Answer. My impression is very clear that I was not consulted in 
relation to that matter. 1 have a very strong impression that I was 
informed that it was under the direction of the Second Comptroller 
that thing was done, under authority from him; it was not from any 
authority or opinion given by me. 

Question. Was there, or not, any authority of law for such double 
payments, outside of the officers of the Treasury Department, 

Answer. I know of no authority to make double payments. The 
case would be the same as that of a paymaster; it would always seem 
to me as based upon the same principle. If a paymaster had paid, 
and improperly paid, as I said before, we stop it. If he has paid twice, 
, and is able to satisfy the accounting officers that in making one of the 
payments, exercising ordinary care, he had been overreached and de- 
ceived, then the accounting officers would allow him a credit for the 
payment so made. I never understood why the same principle did not 
apply to the disbursing agents of the Freedmen's Bureau. It was only 
in a case of fraud, only in a case where there had been gross careless- 
ness, or some fraudulent act on the part of the agent, that I think he 
would be held responsible for the money. 

Question. Then, as I understand, there is no authority outside the 



185 

Comptroller and Auditors of the Treasury that could allow such double 
payments? 

Answer. As I understand it. 

Question. It has been testified that there was no account whatever of 
the payments of bounties to colored soldiers opened on the books of the 
Treasury from March 29th, 1807, to January, 1873, in the name of Gen- 
eral Howard or General Balloch, or any one else acting nnder General 
Howard, disbursing such money. Is this so ; and if so, Mhy ? 

Answer. I cannot speak without referring to the books of the Office. 
If it is so, it is because the account hadnotbeeu adjusted, and there was 
no means of carrying that amount on the books of ray Office until the ac- 
count had been adjusted. The money did not come through the Treas- 
ury ; the money came directly from the Paymaster-General. 

Question. It was an abnormal condition ? 

Answer. Yes, precisely. It was taken out from a gross sum and paid 
out by the Paymaster-General, and it ^v'as in the act of being disbursed, 
and until the disbursement account was examined and settled we had 
no means of putting it upon our books. 

Question. If a paymaster of the Army or a disbursing officer of the 
Freedmen's Bureau had paid the wrong party, would it have been his 
duty to pay the rightful claimant ? 

A. Certainly, if he liad satisfied himself that he had paid the wrong 
party by mistake, and he had found the man he ought to have paid 
in the first place, it would be his duty then to pay him, because he is a 
creditor of the Government, and it is the business of the Government to 
pay him, and the paymaster, as the disbursing officer of the Government, 
ought to pay him. Then the question whether be should be allowed 
credit for the erroneous payment is a question for future consideration. 

Question. By whom ? 

Answer. By the accounting officer who settles his account. 

Question. He would get credit, as a matter of course, for that pay- 
ment. The question would be about allowing the previous one ? 

Answer. That would be the question. He would be sure to get credit 
for the last payment, and then the question would be whether he should 
get credit for the erroneous payment, and that would depend upon the 
fact whether he had used ordinary care and diligence, and had been de- 
ceived by fraud which would be likely to deceive the elect. 

Question. Of which you and the Second Comptroller are the judges ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. I now have from the files of your Office a communication^ 
apparently in reply to the one you testified, a few minutes ago, that you 
wrote April 10th, 1873, to the Secretary of War, Please state whether 
that is a reply which you hold in your hand. [Letter handed witness.] 

A. Yes, that is the original letter. 

[The letter was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked B^.j 

Question. Is that the signature of the Adjatant-General to that com- 
munication I 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question, Do you recollect who was Acting Secretary of War at that 
time ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Who did you, as Second Auditor, officially recognize as dis- 
bursing officer of the Freedmen's .Bureau from March 29, 1867, to July 
1, 1872? 



186 

Answer. General Ballocli, General Howard, and Mnjor Brown were 
the only three that I recollect. 

Question. When a disbarsin^- officer has filed a voucher in the nature 
of a receipt from a colored soldier for payment of bounty claimed under 
the resolution of March 29, 1807, and claims credit for such disburse- 
ment, and the claimant afterward alleges by affidavit, for example, that 
he has not received his bounty, although required by the disbursing 
agent to sign receipts in advance, what law, rule, or regulation is there 
which would or not prevent you, as the Second Auditor, from suspend- 
ing that portion of the account of a disbursing officer, calling on him to 
j)rove that he had actually paid that money to the claimant 1 

Answer. It would be against the general principle — where a man fur- 
nishes a voucher acknowledging the receipt of money from a disbursing 
officer, and that disbursing officer furnishes that voucher in his account, 
the claimant enabling the disbursing officer to make this claim upon the 
Government — it w^ould be against every principle to require the disburs- 
ing officer then, having that prima facie evidence of payment in his 
hand, to prove that he had made the payment. The burden of proof is 
rather upon the party who has furnished the receipt to show that he 
had not received the money, and show the circumstances under which 
he gave the voucher to the paymaster. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Did not the act of March 20, 1867, make it the duty of the 
officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau to hunt up claimants! 

Answer. Certainly it did ; and the resolution was framed as it was 
framed because the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau had under 
him officers in all the States in which these colored parties resided, whose 
particular business it was to look after the interests of the colored men, 
and we supposed they had opportunities of identifying them and getting 
money to them which the Government had in no other way. 

Question. You spoke, in another answer, of credits to Rankle ; was 
there any account with Eunkle as a disbursing officer ? 

Answer. I did not intend that. It was rather as what he would claim 
of Balloch — credit from Balloch. A voucher furnished General Balloch 
by Runkle, and to be used in Balloch's account as a voucher — a payment 
by Balloch. 

Question. As a matter of opinion it has been put in testimony that 
upon a certain court-martial called for the trial of General Kunkle, 
certain cases of wrong and fraudulent payments were proven to have 
been made by him. and apparently the amounts of those fraudulent pay- 
ments, together with the costs of the court, were included in a tine, which 
fine was remitted by the President; now the inquiry is, under those 
circumstances does the remitting of this tine by the President discharge 
the proper disbursing officer of that money ? 

Answer. I should rather not express any opinion on the subject ; if I 
were the attorney for General Howard 1 think I would make the most 
of that in the argument. 

Question. As to the question with regard to a re-imbursement for double 
payments of bounty, upon page 8 of the second part of the Exhibit B, as a 
matter of fact was not that an account of the Tliird Auditor and not of 
your office, it having been under the disl)ursement of the refugees and 
freedmen's fundi 

Answer. I have nothing to do with that. 

Question. Did General Howard, as Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau, disburse any money in payment of white soldiers' bounty? 

Answer. Not that 1 am aware of. 



187 

By the Couet : 

Qaestion. According- to your experieuce as au accounting officer ex- 
aniining accounts of bounty payments, lias or not the passage of the 
act of March 20, 1867, as administered by the officers of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau, actually increased the security of the colored soldiers as to 
their bounties t 

Answer. I have no doubt of it at all; but my belief is that in the ag- 
gregate they have been very nearly as well paid as white soldiers have 
been ; but there have been about as many fraudulent cases in proportion 
to the number among the whites as among the colored soldiers. 

Question. Since that act? 

Answer. Yes, since tliat act. It was intended to give great security ; 
we hoped for it more than we have found, because we did find officers 
of the Army that were dishonest, and we did not believe that we should. 
We expected that, with their integrity and their personal oi)portunity of 
seeing the claimant and the neighbors of the claimant, they would 
have the means of ascertaining with almost perfect certainty who had 
a right to claim, and to make payments accordingly. I will say, in view 
of that, the accounting officers sometimes i)assed claims, (never unless 
they were correct in form,) passed some claims where there might possi- 
bly be a doubt, because they thought that when the payment came to 
be made, if there were any frauds practiced upon the Department, which 
was obliged to settle upon affidavits alone, these officers would be 
able to detect the fraud and report the fact to the Department and stop 
the payment of certificates improperly issued. 

Question. Was or not the difficulty of identification in the payment 
of colored claimants greater than white ones 1 

Answer. Certainly, a great deal more difficult. 

Question. Can von make your answer more full — whv it was more dif- 
ficult ? 

Answer. In the first place, they were ignorant ; they were moving 
about from place to place; there was no way of identifying them as 
there is of identifying white men; the nature of their society, their re- 
lations — it is almost impossiole especially to identify the heirs of colored 
soldiers. I have got some hundreds of claims now pending in the Office 
where two or three different women are able to ])rove cohabitation, as 
required by law, each claiming to be the widow of a particular soldier. 
I have got one case where there are five. We hoped that the Freed- 
meu's Bureau, having intelligent men on the spot, might be able to 
trace out those little matters which we here in Washington could only 
be informed of by affidavits made by parties whom we did not know, 
and who we knew were very ignorant and sometimes very corrupt. 

Question. Was there any difficulty arising from their having to be 
paid in currency instead of checks! If they were paid in checks the 
banking-officers would assist in the identification of the iierson to whom 
the money was paid, but in the case of the Freedmeu's Bureau they 
could not avail themselves of this means. 

Answer. The payment by money was supposed to be more for the 
interest of the colored man, so that the money itself could be put into 
his hands instead of a check, which he would be obliged to sell to some- 
body who might cheat him in his ignorance of the value of it. 

Question. In the matter of attorney's fees and charges, were or not 
the negro claimants benefited bv the change accom[)lished by the act 
of March 29, 1867 ? 

Answer. Undoubtedly. It was the only restraint that we had ui)on 
the attorneys. You might pass laws limiting the amount of fees which 



188 

they were eutitled to receive, but if they had a power of attorney to 
collect the certificate they would keep themselves entirely within the 
law, and might take any amount of what Avas due the soldier in the shape 
of fees, and there was no remedy for it ; the negro had no tribunal that 
he could go to in his ignorance to look the thing up. I have no doubt 
he would have been swindled out of nine-tenths of the money that was 
due to him but for this measure. 

Question. I understood you to say the other day that they were the 
greatest rascals you had to deal with. 

Answer. Yes; undoubtedly they were. I have had a great uiany 
cases where a man would take a receipt for the entire amount of money, 
and would say to the colored man, "Your claim is not settled yet, but I 
will make an advance to you," and give him $25, i)erhaps, when there 
were $125 or $130 due, and take from him a receipt in full for the entire 
sum. There are prosecutions going on in Baltimore to-day in cases of 
that sort. They are endeavoring to recover the money back from these 
attorneys who committed these frauds, and that would have been nearly 
universal. 

[The examination of the witness was then suspended to enable him to 
consult the records.] 

Joseph M. Brown then appeared before the court, and being duly 
sworn in the presence of the accused, was examined as follows: 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. Joseph M. Brown ; I reside in Washington ; I have been 
engaged in making investments for my friends in the JSTorth, and some of 
my relatives, and am also i)residentof the Caj>ital Publishing Company. 

Question. Between March 21), 1867, and July 1, 1872, in what emplo}'- 
ment were you 1 

Answer. I was in the Bureau of Eefugees, Preedmen, and Abandoned 
Lands as chief quartermaster, and as disbursing officer also. I was also 
detailed as chief quartermaster after the resignation or discharge of 
Henry M. Whittlesey, who was the chief quartermaster. 

Question. During that time had you anything to do with the payment 
of bounties to colored claimants under the resolution of March 20, 1867 I 

Answer. Yes ; 1 paid bounties from the 5th of Februarv, 1872, to the 
30th of June, 1872. 

Question. W^ho then relieved you in the performance of that duty ? 

Answer. I turned over my funds to Captain McMillan, who is the 
present disbursing officer. 

Question. When were you mustered out of your volunteer rank? 

Answer. I was mustered out on the 17th of July, 1867, and I was dis- 
charged by the Secretary of W&r on the 5tli of August, 1872. That is 
my discharge. 

[The witness read as follows:] 

WaK DErARTMEXT, AlXTCTAXT GeXERAL'S OfFICE, 

Washington, D. C, August 5, 1872. 
The services of Maj. J. M. Brown, disbursing officer, late iu the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freediuen and Abandoned Lands, not being further required, he will, under authority 
from the Secretary of War, stand honorably discharged, August 31, 1872, and is hereby 
granted leave of absence to include that date. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Adj ataiit-Gencral . 

Question. By what authority did you become disbursing officer or 
agent for the payment of colored bounties in February, 1872 1 



180 

Answer. I was assigned to the duty by General Howard, by direction, 
I think, or the consent of the Secretary of War. I think the appoint- 
ment reads in that way. I have not a copy of it ; it is tiled in my 
account. It was by direction, I think. 

Question. You do not know whether the Secretary of War gave such 
direction or not ? 

Answer. I know only from the order I received and what General 
Howard told me, that he had consulted the Secretary of War before ap- 
pointing me. I did not see the Secretary of War i)ersonalIy, so I do not 
know. 

Question. Were you require<l to give any bond ? 

Answer. 1 had given a bond as disbursiug ofheer. 

Question. At what time ? 

Answer. After I was mustered out I g:ave a new bond, which I was 
required to give. I renewed my bond as disbursing officer of the 
Bureau. 

Question. For how much was your bonds, and who required you to 
give them, and to whom were they given ? 

Answez'. General Howard required me to give bonds; the}' were given 
to the United States, and the amount was either $0,000 or $10,000. I 
know that my quartermaster's bonds were $10,000, and m_v impression 
is that this bond was $10,000; it may have been $6,000; two sureties. 

Question. By whom was your bond approved ? 

Answer. The certiticates on the bond required it to be approved by 
some party well known to the Department. I got the certificate of a 
gentleman in the War Department. As to the sureties, one of them 
was John M. Forbes, who was well known here, and the other was my 
mother, who this gentleman in the War Department knew, and knew 
as to her responsibility. 
. Question. To whom did you render your bond ? 

Answer. General Howard ; but it was given to the United States. 

Question. While you were acting as disbursing officer in paying these 
colored claims, from February, 1872, until July 1, 1872, what rules and 
regulations were prescribed by the Commissioner for j'our guidance or 
government? 

Answer. While we had the agents they were paid under the same 
rules that had been enforced before. That was, I think, less than a 
month. They were then discharged, and I followed the system of pay- 
ing bounties through the banks in the South. I have the form which I 
used. [Witness produces paper.] I sent the check to the bank to the 
order of the claimant. 

Question. By whose authority did you use this form ? 

Answer. By order of General Howard. I sent a letter, [read to the 
court, copy attached to the record, and marked Exhibit C\j 

Answer (resumed.) The check, it is proper to state, was sent in 
the name of the claimant; the claimant then indorsed the check at the 
bank, an-d the cashier paid the currency funds to the clainmut. That 
was the only way of reaching the claimant, the agents having then 
been discharged. That law required the agents and officers of the 
Freedmen's Bureau to facilitate the payment of these claims, and there 
were constant applications from members of Congress and other parties 
to have these men paid, and this seemed to be the best way of making 
payment. 

Question. These cashiers of branch banks of the Freedmen's Savings 
Trust Company, were they appointed agents of the Bureau '/ 

Answer. They were not at that time, that I know of. I cannot posi- 



190 

tively state that, but I did not consider them as such. I sent them 
money through them the same as I wouhl send money to you if money 
were due you in that way, if I was paying a private claim. 

Question. Was this the form you invariably used? 

Answer. This was the form I used except those I paid personally. 

Question. Under this form it Avould appear that you, at the time of 
sending the check, transmitted vouchers for signatures in duplicate"? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. Do you remember whether you ever sent the vouchers be- 
fore sending the check and had the vouchers returned before making 
out the check ? 

Answer. There were cases where vouchers had been received at the 
office and then I altered them to conform to that state of facts, and I 
then sent the check in the same manner, and altered that to make it 
conform. 

Question. Do you know what had been the practice in the office pre- 
vious to your assuming the duties of disbursing under this head with 
reference to receiving vouchers receipted before or after the drawing of 
a check 1 

Answer. 1 cannot say of my own knowledge in regard to that. There 
were regularly ai)pointed agents then in the iSonth. 1 do not know what 
the practice was. 

Question. Did you have any conversations with the Commissioner at 
the time of preparing this blank, in refeience to this mode of pro- 
cedure of sending vouchers at the same time you sent the check ? 

Answer. I had no conversations with him at all. I think he may 
have been in Arizona at that time, or on his way there. I took it in 
that way because I thought it was the safest way of doing it; and the 
result has proved a success. 

Question. When you were relieved as disbursing officer, in August, 
1812, and turned over your funds on hand to Major McMillan, do you 
recollect whether you turned any money over as due claimants"? 

Answer. I did. There was a large amount of funds sent back to me, 
at different times, from agents in the South, where they had not been 
able to find claimants. The vouchers had gone in as they had been 
forwarded; they had been unable to find the claimants, and they re- 
turned the money to me with list of these claimants to whom the money 
belonged; and I transferred those fnuds to Major McMillan, with a list 
of the claimants. 

Question. Do you recollect how much money you transferred at that 
time? 

Answer. About $31,000, in the aggregate. 

Question. How much did the lists call for ? 

Answer. The lists called for $37,000 or $38,000. 

Question. How was that discrepancy explained ? 

Answer. That was by the defalcation of O. C. French, of Natchez, 
Miss. 

Question. Can you state positively whether or not, at the date that 
you turned over that $31,078 to Captain McMillan, in August, 1872, 
with these lists, that it comprised all the money under that head of 
balance due claimants which had come in your possession ! 

Answer. Yes ; that was the amount I had at that time. 

Question. Did you, at any subsequent time, have any more of that 
description ? 

Answer. I think I turned over some subsequently. I think I received 



191 

some other cbecks afterward, and 1 also turned tliem over. I think the 
total was between ,*31,000 or $32,()()(>. 

Question. Can you tix, with any definiteness, from whom those lists 
of checks were received, and whom they referred to ? 

Answer. I cannot. I do not remember about it. 

Question. Did you turn over the lists with them"? 

Answer. I turned over the lists with them to Captain McMillan. 

Question. When you sent your check to make the payment to a 
bounty claimant, how soon after that did you claim credit at the Treas- 
ury for the expenditure ? 

Answer. As soon as I got the vouchers; not until the vouchers iu 
each case were returned signed. 

Question. If you received the vouchers back without a notification 
from the cashier that the money had been paid in current funds, did you 
still claim a credit at the Treasury! 

Answer. No. I always received a letter from him that he had paid 
those checks, or he forwarded the receipts. In connection with that I 
would like to state that, before making that arrangement of sending 
checks to the cashiers, 1 made an arrangement with the parent bank 
here that I should forward checks in that way, and that they would be 
responsible for the indorsements. Thitt protected me and protected the 
Government, too. If there was a forged indorsement, the bank was 
held. 

Question. Whom did you relieve as disbursing officer iu February, 
1872 ? 

Answer. General Howard. 

Question. For what did you receipt to General Howard upon relieving 
him ? 

Answer. I receipted to him for all bounty funds and the balance of 
the appropriation for the support of the Bureau. He gave me an exact 
statement of the funds, and 1 receipted to him for that. 

Question. Where were those bounty funds to pay the colored claim- 
ants for which you receipted? 

Answer. They were in the Treasury, except, I think, some $15,000 or 
$20,000, Avhich was in the hands of disbursing officers; that was also 
given in the statement which he furnished. 

Q. This money that was iu the hands of disbursing agents; what was 
it in their hands for? 

A. To pay bounties. 

Q. Do you know whether to pay bounties on vouchers returned to 
General Howard, or to pay bounties in cases where the claims had been 
allowed, but where vouchers had not been returned f 

Answer. They held these funds to pay vouchers which had been sent 
them, and which were in their hands ; but vouchers which had not been 
credited at the Treasury. 

Question. Have you a list of those cases among your retained papers, 
turned over by General Howard— a list of the funds ? 

Answer. I think I have that list, and furnished to Major McMillan a 
copy of it. I think he has it ; I have not got it. I gave"^ him the origi- 
nal document, and I think he took a copy of it. I may have it also. 

Question. This list I speak of now refers to funds in the hands of 
agents at the time you relieved General Howard. The list made out by 
him ; did it state what it was iu the hands of agents for ? 

Answer. Yes ; for bounties. 

Question. Did it state particularly to whom ? 

Answer. No ; becau'se these were funds on deposit. For instance, 



192 

Captain Knower, of Baltimore, an officer of the Army, had $6,000 oq de- 
posit in the hands of the United States depositary at Baltimore to pay 
bonnties. That I receipted to General Howard for, and I became re- 
sponsible for the amonnt, and Knower responsible to me, and every dol- 
lar of that money, which he turned over to me in that form, was afterward 
accounted for. There was one item of $070 of Eunkle, which was not 
accounted for, and his pay was stop))ed for the amount. 

(Question. IJo you know who Mr. P. J. Overly is ? 

Answer. I think he was an agent at Louisville. 

Question. Do you know^ his signature ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. If he had written a letter to you at any time, would you be 
able to identify it i 

Answer. I do not know that I would now : I have no recollection of 
the signature. 

By the Court : 

Question. Please state, if you can, between what dates General How- 
ard w as absent from Washington in Arizona, or in going to and return- 
ing from there. 

Answer. I cannot give the exact dates. I think he left in March, prob- 
ably, and returned the latter part of June, 1872; lam not positive. 
That was the iirst time, 1 think, he was absent ; afterwards, after the 
close of the Bureau, I know he was absent from March until the latter 
part of June, 1872. I am not so positive about the other. There was 
an acting Commissioner at the time. 

Question. Do you know of any wrong payments during your admin- 
istration ? 

Answer. One case was returned to me from the War Department. It 
was written by a trend or agent of the claimant, (this was about a year 
ago,) in which he stated that he had not received his money. I went to 
tlie Treasury and got a certified copy of the check from Mr. Spinner, 
with the man's name on the back of the check, and sent that through 
the Department, and I never heard from it from that time to this ; so I 
supposed it was satisfactory. 

Question. You credited in vour account-current those two cases of 
liunkle ? 

Answer. There was a balance General Howard turned over to me in 
the hands of liunkle of $G00 or $700. Rankle claimed those vouchers 
had been paid, but lost, and it was a long time before I could get any- 
thing satisfactory from him. I reported it to the acting Commissioner, 
and he reported it to the War Department, and liunkle's pay was 
stopped for that amount. 

Question. Did you receipt to General Howard for that much money 
on that number of claims? 

Answer. Por that much money in the hands of Eunkle, which should 
have been cash in his hands. 

Question. Did General Howard after\vard receipt back to you ? 

Answer. I^o, he did not. 1 reported on my account-current so much 
money in the hands of liunkle, and it was reported to the Secretary of 
War by the acting Commissioner, liunkle was given a certain amount 
of time to get these vouchers, ami as he was unable to do so, the amount 
was stopped against him. 

Question. And the whole of that is embraced in the proceedings of the 
court-martial ? 



193 

Answer. I do not know whetber that came up or not. [Letter D, on 
page 30 of Exhibit B, shown witness.] 

Question. Do you recollect how much money in gross you turned over 
to Captain JMcMillan in August, 187li ? 

Answer. I cannot positively recollect, but I have no doubt that is the 
amount that appears there, $720,842.11 ; that was sei)arate from the 
131,078.0.3 turned over to Captain McMillan as noted in letter D, on the 
top of page 30. 

Question. What is your explanation of the last paragraph of that 
letter on page 31 f " It would appear from the above that there is a 
deficiency of $3,754.09, that being the sum still required to settle with 
claimants whose claims are borne on the records of the late Bureau of 
liefugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands as unpaid." 

Answer. That amount I am not in any way responsible for. It 
occurred in this wise : Taking the total amount of moneys received from 
the Paymaster-General to pay these claimants, and taking the total 
amount of vouchers, and add what I turned over, and the difference 
should be that amount. That occurred, as I understand it, through the 
double payments of Balloch. He paid claims twice which made that 
difference. That is as I understand it, but I do not know of my own 
knowledge, only as I have been informed. 

Question. It in no wise arose from your administration of the office? 

Answer. Not at all ; it was the winding up of the five or six years' 
business. General Balloch made that deficiency good, as I understand 
it. It was reduced somewhat, but whatever it was he made it good. 

Question. And the $0,841.01 on page 30, letter B, are the funds still 
remaining in the hands of O. C. French f 

Answer. O. C. French, I do not know" whether he has ever jiaid any 
of that or not ; I have been told that he has. In regard to that French 
matter, he stated to me he took that money himself and loaned it to a 
railroad company in Mississippi. 

Question. You have seen French, then ? 

Answer. I have, and he made that statement. This matter was 
reported to the Secretary of War by the acting Commissioner — this 
French matter. 

Question. When was it reported? 

Answer. As soon as it was discovered ; as soon as the inspector was 
sent down there and discovered the condition of affairs. 

Question. Was French a man of responsibility? 

Answer. His bondsmen, I understand, are, and I notified his bonds- 
men at once ; I wrote them personally at once. 

Question. Where? 

Answer. At Vicksburgh. 

Question. Is French still in existence? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I think he is ruuning for Congress, or was. 

Question. Had his character been good prior to this transaction? 

Answer. I never knew anything of the man. 

Question. Had he been in the volunteer service, serving in the Army ? 

Answer. I think he had ; I am not positive. I never knew him until 
I met him in Washington. He showed every disposition to pay the 
amount, and as he had a farm in Ohio, he said he would give a mort- 
gage on that farm. He brought the abstract of title and deeds and all 
down. 

Question. To you ? 

Answer. He showed them to me. They were all sent to the Secretary 
of War. 

13 H c 



• 194 

Question. It was bis proposition to give a mortgage to secure the 
debt ! 

Answer. The papers were sent there. The acting Commissioner knows 
more about that tlian I do, because he took the papers to the Secretary 
of War. 

Question. You do not know whether French has ever been sued ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Who was acting Commissioner I 

Answer. E. Whittlesey. 

Cross-examination by the accused, through his counsel : 

Question. At what time did you become connected with the Freed- 
men's Bureau in any capacity? 

Answer. I thitdc I reported on the 29th of May, 1865. I was then on 
<luty with General Augur, who was then commanding this department. 

Question. By whom w^ere you ordered to report to General Howard 1 

Answer. I was ordered by the Secretary of War, Mr. Stanton. 

(Question. And you continued with the Bureau in one relation or other 
until it closed, under the commissionership of General Howard! 

Answer. I did. 

Question. I wish you would give some idea of the labor imposed on 
the Commissioner in the management of this Bureau from its beginning. 

Answer. That would be a pretty difficult matter. Do you mean as to 
the amount of labor devolving on him ? 

Question. As to the work which was done, and the manner in which 
dt was done? I wish the court to understand that this Bureau, had 
something to do besides collecting bounties. 

Answer. I know in reference to General Howard's time it was en- 
tirely occupied during the whole day ; in fact, it was almost impossible 
at any time to see him, so great was the pressure of business, if yoa 
refer to that. 

Question. Into how many branches or divisions was the Bureau 
•divided 1 

Answer. The claim division, the disbursing division, quartermaster's 
division, educational division, adjutant- general's division, medical 
division. 

■Question. Any division in regard to lands? 

Answer. There was in the earlier stages of the Bureau. 

Question. Your division was that of the quartermaster's? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What was the work in your division ? 

Answer. It comprised all the property in contradistinction from money 
•connected with the Bureau ; all supplies of clothing, furniture, fuel, and 
all of those nuitters. There were regular returns on forms similar to 
those used by the Quartermaster's Department in the Army. These 
were made regularly everj' mouth to the Third Auditor. 

Question. Speaking as to the amount of work, did you have anything 
to do with repairs ? 

Answer. Yes; there was a large number of school-buildings being 
erected in all the States. That was one of the most imi)ortant branches, 
not only here but throughout the South. 

Question. Was that in your charge ? 

Answer. It w^as to a certain extent. 

Question. Did you have anything to do in the way of transportation 
of colored men ? 

Answer. Yes, that was another branch. Many of those requisitions 



I 



195 

came directly to General Howard. Those requisitions for transporta- 
tion — I suppose those amounted to fifty or sixty per day. 

Question. About what number of school-houses did you build, that 
you can remember ? 

Answer. That would be almost impossible to tell. They went up to 
the thousands. I have uo doubt that there were two thousand to three 
thousand school houses built and repaired. In some cases the school- 
houses were not built entirely by the Bureau ; in some instances they 
were given lumber and the labor was furnished by these people. In 
other cases the entire building was erected. These buildings were all 
taken up, and I accounted for them all. The balance which had not 
been turned over to trustees we turned over to General Vincent, at 
the close of the Bureau. 

Question. Did you build hospitals ? 

Answer. We built several hospitals. 

Question. To how many persons did you furnish transportation, in 
round numbers ? 

Answer. I could not give an idea; I suppose there were probably ten 
thousand transportation-orders issued, at least. In some of those orders 
were included five or six whole families. 

Question. How much clerical force did you employ in your division, 
or rather how many employes did you have of all kinds ? 

Answer. In 1S68, '09 and '70, I think in the chief quartermaster's 
oflice there were twelve or fifteen clerks ; they Avere reduced from time 
to time, as work in the Bureau decreased, but that number was in the 
office for a long time. 

Question. Do you remember the whole value of property at any time 
l)ut in your account f 

Answer. No, sir; I cannot give the money-value. I could not even 
approximate to it. 

Question. Not taken up by value, then, but by i^ieces? 

Answer. By pieces ; the same as is done in the Quartermaster's De- 
partment. 

Question. Was your division the largest of those divisions named ? 

Answer. No, sir; the disbursing division was the largest. 

Question. Did yours come next? 

Answer. I think it did in the amount of work. 

Question. Did General Howard have supervision over all these divis- 
ions of his Bureau ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did he have frequent inspections of them ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; frequent inspections were made, and he used to 
visit them very often himself, personally — almost daily, I think. 

Question. Did you make inspections for him ? 
' Answer. I have, at Memphis, Tenu. 

Question. In the matter of O. (J. French ? 

Answer. No, sir ; in the matter of Mark Edwards. 

Question. By whom were the principal inspections made? 

Answer. They weris made by the inspectors of the Bureau. General 
Sewall was one, and I think General FuUerton was another ; General 
Strong was one, and General E. Whittlesey was another. Fullertou, I be- 
lieve, was the adjutant-general ; he may have been inspector-general ; 
but that was in the early days of the Bureau. 

Question. Was there a separate division of inspection? 

Answer. There was a separate office ; it was more of an oflice than 
a division. 



lor; 

Qnostion. Did (UMicral Ilowjirtl {40 iiwny himself on inspectioiiH ? 

Answer. I^'recinently. 

Question. As si rule of the Olllcc did not tlie inspection immediately 
follow a cotnj>Iaint of any considci-abh^ iniixnlanee ? 

Answer, I never kninv of anytliin<;- heinj; brought up to Genera? 
Ilowarcrs notiee that he did not take action on. 

(^^uestion. Within wliat time? 

Answer. At once. 11(^ seemed to be very promi)t about these things. 

<,^)uesti(»n. What ])r()p()iti()nal i)art of his work in rlnM-ommeneemenC 
of tlu^ i»aynient of tlu^sci biMintics thiough him would have been properly 
given to tlu^ (lisburscment <livision of his Olhcef 

Answer, llecould give xc^ry little jn-rsoual attention to that; with 
all those other duties that, he had, it would be impossible. 

(^>uestion. Did iu' give as much to that as to tli(M)ther divisions ? 

Answer. 1 ihiidv he gave nu)re to that; but there were [>eo|)le con- 
stantly caliiug on him of all sorts and kinds — nuMid)ers of (longress and 
everybody else, taking up time — people that he could not very well 
put oil'. 

t^),uestion. Was his time devoted to the discharg*' of the duties of his 
oflice while ycm were there 1? 

Answer. 1 should say it was; lu^ was always in hisollice. 

Question. As a personal (piesticm : Did you settle your own {iceounts? 

Answi^r. I have, and havci the certificates of the Auditor and the 
Comj)troller to the ac(!ouids. 

Question. Of all kinds? 

Answer. l*;verythiug. This ou<', in particular, refers to the bounty- 
matter. [Witness i)roduces paptn-. It was read to the court. A copy 
is attached to the record and marked Exhibit J>'', there being no objec- 
tion (Ui the i>art of the a<*cused.| 

Answer, (resumed.) Thei-e is om> from the Third Auditor. [Witness 
])rodiu-es paper. It was read to the court. A copy is attached to the 
record ami marked lOxhibit 10', there being no objection on the part of 
the accused. I 

(Question. What do you know about the llunkle matter'? 

A. I know nothing but what I have stated abtmt the matter, that be 
was deticient six or seven huudrexl <lollars. 

The .)ui)(ii';Ai)V()('A'rK said: With reference to the imhd)tedness of 
O. C Freiu'h I otfer, with the consent of the accused, the following doc- 
ument : 

(The document was read. A coi)y is attached to the record and 
marked lOxliibit F''. Tlu^ examination was closed. The witness'then 
retired.) 

IOlumiai.f/I' WiiiTTi.i'Siov then appeared before the cotjrt, and being 
duly swi>rn, in [»resence of the accused, was examined as follows: 

By the Jitdge- Advocate: 

(Question. State your full name, residence, and occupation. 

Answer. lOliphalet Whittlesey; present residence in Washington; 
have no pi'eseut occui>ation. J have an engagement to go to Bowdoin 
('ollege, in Maiui^. 

<,)uestion. between March LM), 1807, and July 1, 18713, were yon in 
tlu^ (iovernnu'ut service; if so, in what capacity f 

Answer. 1 was in the (5o\erp.ment service. On March 2!>, 18(17, and 
part of 18(18, 1 was assistant iuspetrtor-general in the Fi'cedmen's J5u- 



I 



1!)7 

joiiii, and tlic rcinaiiidor ol tlic^ (imc, and liom (liat until 'Inly, 1872, F 
was tlu^ adjnt aid -{general on (Jcncral Howard's si a IT. 

(^)n<'sl,ion. In 18(»7, di<l von lioM a (•(»nnnission in (lie s(M'vi<!0 ? 

Answer. I did. IMy c-onnnission was tlial, of a (MiloniO. I had been 
ap|>oint(Ml colonel ol' llic I'^oity-sixdi Uc^inu^nl, ofi-oiorcd I'roops al)out 
the dose of the war. and wasrctaim'tl with that raidv until thcund of 18G7, 
and mustered out, it 1 reeolleet rightly, on the .'5Ist of Deceuiber, I8G7 ; 
iuul also brev(^t brij^adier-j^cneral of voluid.eers. 

(^)u<'stion. J»y what authority ditl you theicaCter continue in the liu- 
I'eau of J\efu<j;;H^s, l^'nu'chnen, and Abandoned hands '? 

Answer. l>y tin; appoiidwuent of (HentMaJ Howard. 

Question. Throuj^hoid. the South tiiere wer(5 in tlui service of the I»u- 
resiu, as a<;■<^nls, offureis who had been niuslered out of i\w, s(U'vi(;<^, who 
had been in tiui vohintcM'r servic<'. Can you t,<',ll by whai authority 
these ollieeis wei'e eonlinned on duty in the nureaii, aside from the law 
bearinji' upon the <|ueslion ? 

Answer. 'Fhey all recei\('d I'e appoinlinents, (those that reniainc<l in 
the r.ureau,) by (ieiu'ral Howard, nnder that, law. 

(j)uestion. How was their euipioynu'nt, in the Kiireau discontinued? 

Answer. The a^'ents were dischai'^i'd by order of (Jeneral Howard. 
1 will ad<l to my last statement- that, some <lis(',liar^('S, if \ recollect 
rijifhtly, n^ad " by direction of liie S«H',i(^laiy of War." I am iu)t sure 
that a'll <lid. 

(^)uestion. Who was actinj;" as disbursinj; a^cnl. or oflicer for the 
llureau at hea,(hpuirtorsi? 

Answer. Durin;^' the lar}4<'r ]»a,rt of the lime, (ieneral (leor^'e W. IJal- 
loch. 

(^)u(^stion. Do yon know what care or siiper\ision was exercised by 
tin; (Commissioner witii icference to tlu' ac(;oinils of his chief disbuisin^r 
ag'cnt or ollicer at headquarlcMs '! 

Answer. J know they were in \ery frcMpuMit consultation, every day ; 
oft(M» in consult at iim in my ]u-esen<;e, thonj;h my room was sepa,rat,«! from 
that of the Commissioiu'r and disltnr.sinj; ol1i<;ei', so that theii' conversa- 
tions \v<'re m>t always, perhaps not ^^t'nerally, in my pr«>sence. 

(Question. Were, you at any tinu' acliiij;' ( !ommissioner '! 

Answer. Yes, sir; several times in (Jeneial Howard's abscMice. 

(ijuestion. In 187-J, do yon recollect acting' in tlial (-apacity ? 

AnswcM'. Y(\s; I was actinji in that capacity. 1 was nev<M' appointc^l 
actinji," (Commissioner; but beiiifj;- adjutant- };(un'ral, ami in the absences of 
General Howaid, 1 natuially had charge, of alfairs ()f tlu^ l^'ii^cMlnu'u's IJu- 
rcjui un<ler the direction of tlu^ Se<a(;tary of War. In IHl'J, (Icuieral 
TToward was absi-nt from, I shoidd t,hiid<, the latter part of F(d)rua,ry or 
tiie (list i»ait of March until early in rlune or some time in July — during 
nil that time I had j^'cneral chai'^c, of the onic(\ 

(^luistion. J)o you know when tlu; records were transferred from the 
Bureau of Ivefuj^^'cs and I^'reedmen to the Adjidant, (Heneral's olliiui ? 

Answer. Yes; they vv(n-e tiansferred in th<i lattcu' part of -luiu?, 1871}, 
and -Inly; sonu', portions wer<i left until .Inly. 

((Question. Do you know whei-e the commissioner was at that tinio? 

Answ<u'. He was on duty in his ollice, i think. 

The court then, at 3 o'clock and 15 minutes ]>. m., adjourned until 
Monday, April <i, 1874, at II o'clock a. m. 



198 



TWENTIETH DAY 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington., I). C, Mofiday, April 6, 1874 — 11 a. tu. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Fresent. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Major Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Friday, April 3, were read and 
approved. 

After the reading, the judge-advocate said : 

As Mr. Cochran, the official reporter of this court, has been called to 
New York to attend the equity term of the New York court of common 
pleas, I desire to appoint during his temporary absence, and under the 
provision of section 28 of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, 
Mr. James B. Sheridan, official reporter of the New York superior court 
and a co-partner of Mr. Cochran, as reporter. 

Mr. Sheridan, in open court, was then duly sworn faithfully to report 
the proceedings and the testimony taken before this court, according to 
law. 

Hon. Ezra B. French then reappeared before the court, and in the 
presence of the accused said : 

I desire to correct my previous testimony as follows : I wish to state, 
in reply to the question, " Under what law and authority the Auditor 
and Comptroller settled with paymasters and allowed them for over- 
payments !" 

By the Court : 

Question. For over-payments ! 

Answer. Irregular payments, which is the same thing. I wish to re- 
ply that it was under the act of March 16, 1868, chapter 29, volume 15, 
of the Statutes at Large. 

[The witness here read the chapter at the request of the court.] 

That the proper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they are hereby, author- 
ized, in the settlement of accounts of paymasters of the Army, to allow such credits for 
over-payments made in good faith on public account since the commencement of the 
rebellion, and prior to the passage of this act, as shall appear to them to be just, by 
such vouchers and testimony as they shall require. 

J will state that under that act the construction of the accounting 
officers had been that erroneous payments made in good faith were to 
be regarded as over-payments, and allowance has been made under that 
law in the settlement of all paymasters' accounts. Prior to the passage 
of that law, no such authority existed. There were, prior to that time, 
allowances made by the Secretary of W^ar, and under act of June 23, 



199 

1870, allowances could be made where the officer claimed that he had" 
lost vouchers or lost funds that were in his hands, not to exceed $5,000, 
provided it was approved by the Secretary of War. 

By the COUET : 

Question. Was there not a similar law at the close of the Mexican 
war? 

Answer. At the close of the Mexican war there was a law giving a 
fraction of oue per cent, to the paymasters, which was intended to cover 
cases of that kind, and settlements were made ; they were reimbursed 
for such kind of i^ayments in that way ; they were allowed that in the 
settlement of their accounts. When this provision came before Congress 
it was proposed to adopt a similar course to the one that was adopted' 
at the time of the close of the Mexican war, but it was contended that 
that operated alike on the faithful and on the unfaithful ; it left no dis- 
cretion anywhere, and therefore the law was passed as it now stands. 

Question. You remember the case of Capt. Joseph L. Folsom, quarter- 
master in San Francisco, after his vouchers were burut up in the great 
tire I 

Answer. I do not; it is not a case that would come in my office for 
settlement, but we have had a great many cases where paymasters 
claimed that they had been robbed or that they had lost by the burning 
of steamboats or the sinking of boats, carrying down with them their 
funds ; a great many cases that have been adjudicated under the law of 
1870 that was passed in the interest of that class of men whose accounts 
could not be allowed by the accounting officers of the Treasury under 
existing law. 

Question. Would irregular payments made by disbursing agents, 
other than commissioned paymasters, be settled under the law of March 
16, 1868? 

Answer, ^o ; it would extend only to paymasters ; it would apply to 
their cases only. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. When was a statement of differences between March 29, 
1867, and July 1, 1872, rendered to acting disbursing officers of the 
Bureau ? 

Answer. I cannot answer that except from the minutes of my office, 
which I have not here. 

Question. Is your recollection definite with reference to your testi- 
mony of Friday last, that you recognized Maj. J. M. Brown officially as 
a disbursing officer for the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands? 

Answer. I think it is ; I have no doubt of the fact. 

Question. What is that communication that you now hold in your 
hand ? [Handing witness a letter.] 

Answer. This is a mere letter advising him under date of March, 
1872, that he was not recognized as the disbursing officer ot the Freed- 
men's Bureau, but an assistant. 

Question. Is that signed by you ? 

Answer. Xo ; it is not signed by me, but it was signed undoubtedly 
under my direction by Mr. Sims, who was authorized to sign my name. 

[The letter referred to, dated March 8, 1872, was offered in evidence, 
and read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, and marked 
Exhibit G^, there being no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. Have you any recollection of what brought forth that 



200 

commnnication from your office that I have just road? [Handing wit- 
ness a letter.] 

Answer. From the h^'tter which I hold in my hand, addressed to the 
Comptroller by Chas. T. Lamed, who was a paymaster in the United 
States Army, 1 am inclined to tlie opinion that it was drawn out in 
conse(]uence of that, but 1 have no distinct recollection in relation to it. 

Question. Whose signature is to that communication you are now re- 
ferring to? 

Answer. The signature of Dr. Brodhead, the Second Comptroller, ad- 
dressed to General Iloward. 

[The letter was offered in evidence and read to the court. A copy is 
attached to the record and marked Exhibit H^, there being no objection 
on the part of the accused.] 

(Question. Do you know whose indorsement that is on that commu- 
nication ? 

Answer. The indorsement of the Second Comi)troller. 

[The indorsement and letter were offered in evidence and read to the 
court. A copy is attached to the record and marked Exhibit P, there 
being no objection on the i)art of the accused.] 

Question. Where i)uyments were made through theFreedmen's Bureau, 
under that resolution of March 29, 1807, by eertiticates in settlement of 
the claim, being made payable to the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau, did you receive any other evidence at the Treasury of the pay- 
ment to the claimant than those receipts, in the form in which they 
appear ? 

Answer. 'No, sir. 

(Question. When did the Treasury consider the Treasury itself dis- 
charged, in reference to the payment of those claims? 

Answer. At my office? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. When the settlement was made. When we settled a claim 
and sent the certificate specifying the party, and the amount due to the 
l)arty under the settlement, to General Howard for payment, the duty 
of the accounting othcers had ceased. 

By the Court : 
Question. That is the settlement by certificate? 
Answer. That is the settlenient by certificate ; yes, sir. 
Examination of witness ended. 

James M. Brown, a former witness, then resumed the stand in the 
I)resence of the a(!cused, and with the permission of the court, made the 
tollowing correctU)n of his testimony : 

The witness said : '' I desire to put in this order [exhibiting an order] 
turning over the funds." 

[The letter was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit J^', there being no objection on the part of the ac- 
cused.] 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. Did you file any authority from General Howard with the 
Second Comptroller to enable you to receipt bounty-certificates in Gen- 
eral Howard's name? 

Answer. Yes, 1 recollect this letter, (Exhibit P.) Of course, if I 
got that — if General Howard gave me that authority, I filed that, not 
in the Treasury Department, but with Colonel Larned. 



201 

Question. Do you recollect whether you had such written authority 
or not ? 

Auswer. It is not very plain to my memory now. I must have had 
that, because General Howard was away in Arizona, and I received 
those certificates. I know I must have had some such authority, but 
that would be with Colonel Lamed, would it not, naturally ? 

Question. I do not know ; I ask you ? 

Answer. Well, that is my impression. 

By the Court : 

Question. When you were makino' these payments througli the 
Southern States, had the ofificers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau 
been discharged f 

Answer. When I first commenced to make those payments, they had 
not; they were very soon afterward discluirged. I should like to make 
this one statement ; that, when I commenced to disburse this fund for 
the first montli, I disbursed it in my own name ; subsequently it was 
disbursed in the name of (Teneral Howard, by direction of the Second 
Auditor; but the first month it Avas disbursed in my own name — the 
month of February, 187L'. This letter is dated the 8th March ; then I 
commenced disbursing them in General Howard's name, by me. 

[The letter referred to was Exhibit G 5.] 

Question. After the oflicers and agents of the Bureau were discharged, 
how did you make payments to claimants distant from Washington^ 

Answer. I made them, as I stated, through the cashiers of the banks 
by sending those checks to tlie cashiers, drawn to the order of the 
claimant. 

Question. Then had you any other means of carrying out the law of 
March 29, 18G7, than through the cashiers of the Freedmen's Bank? 

Answer. I had no other way but that ; that was the only way I could 
pay a man in Vicksburg, or in Natchez, or any other of those southern 
cities. As I stated in my testimony, there was this constant pressure 
from Congressmen and others to have these men paid, and 1 devised 
this method as 1 thought it was the best that could be done. 

Eliphalet E. Whittlesey, a former witness, resumed the stand, 
in the presence of the accused, and with the i)ermission of the court cor- 
rected his testimony as follows: 

The witness said : I want to say that all civilian agents and clerks 
were appointed and discharged by order of the Secretary of War, but 
those retained ofificers, those who had been officers in the Army and 
were retained, were retained by the orders of the Commissioner. 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. Go on and state how they were discharged. 

Auswer. They were discharged by direction of the Secretary of War ; 
like all others, in the regular form, except those that remained in office 
when the Bureau was brought to a close. Of course they were dis- 
charged, an<l they were discharged also by the Secretary of AVar, as I 
was myself discharged by the Secretary of War. 

Question. When an officer of volunteers was on duty in the Bureau, 
and he was mustered out of his volunteer rank by formal special order 
from the War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, how w^as he re- 
tained in the Bureau ? 

Answer. By an order of the Commissioner. 



202 

Question. When his services were no longer required in the Bureau, 
how did lie receive his discharge ? 

Answer. By direction of the Secretary of War, by order of the Com- 
missioner. 

Question. Do you know whether that was the invariable practice I 

Answer. I am quite sure it was the invariable practice. I have not 
examined every special case. 

Question. The orders for their discharge were issued, as I understand 
it, by the Commissioner ? 

Answer. By the Commissioner. 

(Jnestion. And the order recited in it that his services were no longer 
required, by direction of the Secretary of War? 

Answer. By direction of the Secretary of War. 

Question. Ilave you any knowledge whether the Secretary of War 
actually gave or not in each of these cases such directions, or whether it 
was a formality in the conduct of the business of the OfBce ? 

Answer. I have no knowledge in the case where I did not myself con- 
sult the Secretary of War. 1 do not know whether General Howard, 
the Commissioner, consulted him in every specific case or not; but I 
know, when I was left in charge of the Bureau, that I went to the Sec- 
retary of War and consulted him, giving him a list of the names and 
getting his orders. 

Question. To what class of officers are you referring now ? 

Answer. I am referring now to all officers, agents, and clerks. 

Question. When an officer of volunteers received his honorable dis- 
charge or muster-out of the service and was retained in the Bureau, do 
you mean to say that invariably his services were discontinued as Bureau 
agent by direction of the Secretary of War 1 

Answer. 1 believe so. 

Question. Have you ev^er seen this extract ^o. 11, purporting to be an 
extract from an order issued by General Howard as Commissioner ? 

Answer. Frequently. 

Question. Uo you know by whom that was issued ? 

Answer. That order was issued by General Howard, approved by the 
President. 

[The document was read to the court. A copy is attached to the 
record and marked Exhibit K^, there being uo objection on the i)art of 
the accused.] 

Question. Do you know by whom that circular was issued ? [Paper 
shown witness.] 

Answer. "Circular No. 17, September 20, 18G5." It is very familiar 
to me. I have read it frequently. It was issued by the Commissioner. 

I The paper was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit JJ, there being no objection on the part of the 
accused.] 

Question. Do you know whether that is an extract from an official 
report or not? [Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. I recognize that as an extract from a printed copy of the 
official report, for 18G5, of the Commissioner. I don't know that I have 
read the original report in manuscript. 

[The extract was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record 
and marked Exhibit M^, there being no objection on the part of the 
accused.] 

Question. That report dated November 1, 1867, of the Commissioner, 
[handing witness the report.] 



203 

Answer. This whole report I know as the printed copy of General 
Howard's report for that year. 

[The judge-advocate then read from the printed report of the Com- 
missioner (General Howard,) dated November 1, 1867, to General U. S. 
Grant, Secretarj' of War ad interim, entitled " Pay and bounty and 
prize-money." A copy is attached to the record and marked Exhibit N^, 
there being no objection on the part of the accnsed.] 

Qnestiou. Have you seen a report of the Commissioner, a printed 
report of October 24, 1868, to the Hon. J. M. Schofield, Secretary of 
of War"? (handiug witness the report.) 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I have. 

[An extract from the report marked " Pay, bounty, and prize-money " 
was offered in evidence and read to the court. A copy is attached to 
the record and marked Exhibit O^, there beiug no objection on the part 
of the accused.] 

Question. This is the report of the Commissioner of October 20, 1870 — 
the printed report to the Secretary of War ! 

Answer. Yes, 

Question. Y^ou are familiar with it ! 

Answer. Yes. 

[An extract from the report marked '"Pay, bounty, and prize-money" 
was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record, marked Ex- 
hibit P^, there beiug no objection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. These reports of the staff-officers — General Balloch's, for 
instance — did they accompany the Commissioner's report to the Secre- 
tary of War ? 

Answer. They accompanied the Commissiouer's report and were adopt- 
ed as a part of that report. 

[The extract marked "Exhibit P"^ — Continued," headed "Financial 
Eeport," was then read and attached to the record, there being no ob- 
jection on the part of the accused.] 

Question. I refer now to the report of the Commissioner to the hon- 
orable Secretary of War, dated October 20, 1871. Is that his report ? 
[Paper shown witness.] 

Answer. That is his report. 

[An extract from the report marked "Pay, bounty, and prize-money" 
was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit Q^, there beiug no objection on the part of the accused.] 

By the Court : 

Q. Was the order of the Commissioner for retaining officers of volun- 
teers, when mustered out, under any law of Congress 1 

Answer. Under the law of July 10, 1860, and also that of July 10,. 
1868. Those laws were specified in the orders retaining the officers. 

The witness was then cross-examined. 

By the Accused (through his counsel) : 

Question. General Whittlesey, I would like to have a statement from 
you of the work which this Freedmen's Bureau had to do, and therein 
the work which would fall upon the Commissioner. 1 would like it con- 
siderably in detail, if you can give it. 

Answer. It covers very broad. ground. If I would be allowed by the 
court to put in the annual report, it would cover about the whole ground. 
The work contemplated by the Freedmen's Bureau is stated very briefly 
in Circular No. .5, series of 1805, which has already been put in evidence. 
(Exhibit K^ referred to.) That circular states the objects to be attained 



204 

l)y the Bureau, and it was regarded as the fundameutal charter, being 
approved by the President. All of us who were subordinates of the 
Commissioner looked to it as our authority. Then in the report of 18G9 
there is a condensed statement of the work of the Bureau up to that 
time, and its operations, except the payment of bounties and some 
slight supervision of the schools at the SoutL, and the charge of one 
hospital in Washington, having been closed at that time. This report 
•of 18C9 gives a condensed summary of all that had been done up to 
that time. The work was organized and sy>stematized under several 
branches. The first work was to attbrd relief to the sick, and the aged, 
and orphans, and all that were destitute in the Southern States at the 
•close of the war. 

Question. Without regard to color ? 

Answer. All freedmen and refugees — loyal refugees. We found when 
the Bureau began its work a very large number congregated in the 
cities all over the South, in this city, and elsewhere, who were left by 
the Army in its various operations, and had been gathered in many 
ways, who were utterly destitute, and they were being supported at that 
time by the Army. A very large number of rations were issued every 
day in different parts of the country. The number is given in different 
reports, which have been put in, and the Bureau inherited that work 
and took it up. The number of rations that were issued in the first few 
months was very large ; I think the statement is that there were some- 
thing more than one hundred and fifty thousand persons being supplied 
daily when the Freedmen's Bureau went into operation. The num- 
1)er of persons relieved by the Commissary Department, in the month 
of August, 1805, was 148,120. I stated 150,000 in round numbers. In 
the succeeding month, after the Bureau had become organized suffi- 
ciently to take the matter in charge and sift out those that were really 
not worthy of help, who were able-bodied and could find their own sup- 
port, the number was reduced to 74,951. Then, in September, 1800, a 
year afterward, the number had been reduced to 29,819. I take these 
figures from the report. During the year ending September 1, 1867, 
11,658 had received help gratuitously. During the year following the 
supplies were furnished by special act of Congress, not only to desti- 
tute colored people and the loyal refugees, but all the destitute of the 
South. By a special act passed, I think, in the spring of 1867 — March 
30, 1867 — the Secretary of War w^as directed to issue, through the 
Freedmen's Bureau, supplies of food, sufficient to prevent starvation, in 
all the Southern States, and $500,000 was set apart for that special 
purpose ;■ so that during that summer and autumn and the following 
winter of 1867 and 1868 a much larger number of persons were as- 
sisted than during the previous year or the following. So that during 
the year ending September 1, 1868, the average number, taking in all 
these white people, aided by the Freedmen's Bureau — the average number 
assisted was 16,804. Then, in 1869, the average number had been very 
much reduced again ; it was only 1,983 ; most of these were in hospital ; 
^sick persons and orphan children. And in connection with this subject 
of relief, which was furnished to so large an extent, care was taken of 
the sick and infirm old men and women throughout the South. The 
hospitals that had been established by the department commanders and 
others were taken up and enlarged, so as to afford relief to a much greater 
number than had been helped before. During the first three months 
fl,fter the organization of this system of relief to the sick, the number of 
refugees and freedmen receiving medical treatment was 48,429 j and 
in the next ten months, up to August 30, 1866, the number of patients was 



205 

106,521. The number of hospitals during that period was fifty-six, and 
there were five orphan asylums established. During the ten months 
ending June, 1807, the number of patients was 114,119, and in the next 
year the number treated was 159,149 ; the next year, 05,930 ; so that, 
up to the end of July or August, 1809, there had been treated through 
the Freedmen's Bureau 584,178 sick and infirm persons, for whom no 
provision was made by the local authorities. After that a great eflbrt 
was made to turn over all those hospitals to municipal governments of 
the towus where they were located, and to the State authorities ; so 
that the number was very soon reduced from 50 down to two hospitals ; 
one in Louisville, Kentucky, and finally to one, which was established 
and still remains in existence here in the District of Columbia. 

In addition to all this work of furnishing relief to the sick and to the 
destitute, the next point that I may allude to was furnishing em- 
ployment — finding employment for the great multitude of idle people 
throughout the South — and to do that all the officers and agents of the 
Bureau were directed by the Commissioner to enter into correspond- 
ence and to communicate in every way with the owners of lands, and 
also with the freedmen, and try and bring them together. The great 
diflficulty at first was to restore confidence. They were separated. They 
were suspicious of each other; the owners of the lands, the planters, 
did not believe that the freedmen would work for wages; they had no 
experience in employing them in that way, and were afraid to under- 
take it. The freedmen, on the other hand, were equally suspicious of 
their former owners ; were afraid that if they entered into any agree- 
ment with them they would be cheated out of their wages. The work 
of bringing the two parties together so that they should have confi- 
dence in one another was undertaken by the Freedmen's Bureau. One 
of the devices was to get up a system of contracts for labor. The freed- 
men were brought together on a certain farm or plantation, and it was 
explained to them carefully that now they were going to enter into an 
agreement with their employer, and their names would be put down, 
and the amount they were to be paid per month put down, and a copy 
of this would be kept by the Freedmen's Bureau agent, so that if any 
difficulty arose they might appeal to the agent for evidence and for 
relief, and that system was carried out throughout the South. Hun- 
dreds of thousands, I suppose, of such contracts were drawn up, em- 
bracing the names of a great many, many thousands, of laborers. The 
result, as reported by tlie various assistant commissioners, was exceed- 
ingly happy. For instance, General Sheridan, who was at one time in 
charge of affairs in the State of Louisiana, in addition to being the 
commander of that department, or district, wrote on one occasion as 
follows : 

Bureau officers have extended supervisiou over freedmen's contracts, and the result 
has been to the advantage of all. In not a single instance where contracts have been 
made in accordance with the mode prescribed by the Bureau has a complaint been 
made by either of the parties to the contract ; while on the other hand, when the Bu- 
reau has been ignored, complaints by both employe and employer have been frequent. 
The reason is obvious : both parties understand the contract when explained by the 
agent, and knowing that the influence of the Bureau will be thrown against the par- 
ties violating it, while in those contracts in which the Bureau is ignored a majority of 
the bargains are vague and ill-detined, meaning anything or nothing ; many of them 
are mere verbal agreements, made without witness. 

Page after page of such testimony was given by the assistant com- 
missioners as to the good results of this system of contracts between 
laborers and their employers. One of the assistant commissioners said 
that in a single State, not less than fifty thousand such contracts were 



20G 

drawn in duplicate, and tilled np with the names of all the parties. If 
that was carried ont in the same ])roportion in all the Southern States, 
it would give some idea of the amount of work accomi)lislied by the 
Freedmen's Uureau, all of which was reported to head(iuarters at Wash- 
ington, and had to be examined and approved there. 

By the Court : 

Question. By the Commissioner ? 

Answer. By the Commissioner. Another dei)artmont of the work of 
the Bureau was, to take charge of aUamh)ned lands. At the close of 
the war a great many plantations were found unoccupied, and a law of 
Congress put all sucli i)roperty into the hands of the Freedmen's J>ureau 
to manage, and for a while it was supi)Osed that a sullicient revenue 
could be derived fiom these lands to carry on the operations of the 
Bureau ; and they were taken up and examined and sometimes surveyed 
and divided up into smaller tracts, small farms, ami then rented ont to 
the cohered peoi)le. r>ut \ cry few loyal refugees had any interest in 
these lands or took any of them, but c()h)red people rented them, and 
about $4()(>,0()() toward sui)porting the Bureau in its operations was de- 
rived from that source, Iroui renting these lands and taking a portion of 
the crops when they were raised ; and all these l)argains had to be 
made; leases drawn u]); the croi)s, when they were gathered, sometimes 
were paid; the rent was ])aid, not in money, but in kind ; that is, a por- 
tion of the croj) was paid in to the Bureau agent, and he was obliged to 
get it to market and get the money for it, and report it to the Commis- 
sioner ; and constant reports were going back and forth, and correspond- 
ence Avith reference to this business. It will give some idea of the mag- 
nitude of it, when I read from this same rei)ort of 18GJ), that nearly 
800,000 acres of farming lands were thus taken in charge, and about 
r),000 pieces of town property, houses and lots in towns, taken charge of 
and rented, and from this, as is stated here, nearly $400,000 revenue 
was derived. Some of these farms were set apart for destitute colored 
people and ori)hans, and they were occui)ied and agents put in charge, 
and they were set to work, those able to work, cultivating the land, so 
as to partially support themselves. These lands, however, were soon 
restored to their origiiud owners by order of the President. Orders were 
issued that all such i)roperty should be restored, whenever any person 
conld present a pardon, a special pardon, or any evidence that he had 
been relieved from his disabilities in any way ; so that all such lands 
were out of the ])ossession of the Bureau after about the second year of 
its existence — nearly all ; a few tracts remained. For instance, in the 
neighborhood of Arlington, a few other pieces of property remained 
until the Ihireau was closed. Then th.e public lands of the United 
States in INIississippi, Ijouisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, and Florida, were 
also opened, by act of Congress, in 1800, for settlement to the colored 
people, as well as others, and the Bureau had charge of endeavoring to 
transport many families and settle them on the public lands. It was a 
ditticult work, because they had no means; they had no farming imple- 
ments or capital to begin w ith, and of course tlie number that could be 
thus settled upon Government lands was not very large ; but some four 
or five thousand families were thus transported to the i)ublic lands and 
obtained farms of their own, by entering them just as white people would 
do. 

The great work — one great work of the Bureau — was to establish a 
system of education for the colored people. Some schools were found 
in existence that had been already organized and begun by benevolent 



207 

HocictuiS at the North, who had taken a ^leat interest in thiss matter, 
and the Jiiireaii co-o[>erate(l — the FreiMlmcn's liiireau <-,o operated with 
those societies; did not uniU^rtake to interfere witli their operations at 
all, bnt merely to help them on and enlarge their o])erations, and then 
establisli achlitional schools. There was no ;ipi)roi)riafi()n at fir-st di- 
rectly available for the snjiport of schools, but tlu; (Jommissioner was 
authorized to use certain poitions of the funds approprinted for the 
rental or erection of s(;hool-buildin<4s, and also to furnish ti;uisporlatiou 
to teachers, and to furnish them supplies to a certain extent; so that 
indirectly, althou<;h he could not pay the waj^es of teachers, lie could 
do very mu(;h tow;ird supi»oitin{;^ schools. At the end of the lirst year 
of the existence of the r'reedmen's Jinreau the otiicial report }4av«; !)7."> 
.schools in operation, \,\U~) teacheis, and 1)0, 77s jtupils. In l.S(J7 the 
nund)er had increased to 111, (Mid ])U]»ils; in I.S<}.S it was reported as 
101,000 pupds ; iti I.S()!», 1 1 1.000 in lound nuiid)eis. This did not include 
nijjfht-scliools and other additiontd schools for adidts that j^atheied 
around thes<' various scliools, ami it was estimated, and so stated in 
the report of ISdO, that about IT^O.OOO )»ersons, adidts and childien, 
were receivinji,- instruction, ]>artly tlirouj;h tin; aid of the Frccdnu'n's 
Bureau, ami partly tiirou^h bencxoh^nt contributions from vaiious jtor'- 
tions of the (country ; l»ut all thes(! schools were under the supervision 
of the Freedmen's Bureau, and iln^y all reported to the Comndssioner. 
The teachers, their superintendents, and a yem'ral management ol' them 
was concentrated here in the ofMce at Washington. 

Then comes in the bounty work, which began in 1807, and I hardly 
know where to begin in s[)eaking of that; it was so immense and dif 
ticult. These bounties, tin; i»ayment of them I had ])ersonally iu»thing 
to do with, being the adjutant-general ; but 1 had a general know ledge 
of the method and the greatness of the work, and the difliculty of it. 
A very lai'ge amount of (;oriespon<lenc(' i'espe(;ting tin; matter- (;aiue 
through me, as adjutant general of the IJureau, and passed through nry 
hands to the various divisions of the Bur-eau, so that I was k(;pt faiiriliar 
with its operations all the time — near-ly all the time after the bc^ginning 
of that work, because I became adjutant-gener-al in tlio latter ))a-it of 
the year 18(>7, and continued in that o(li(;e until the Jiureau cIoschI, in 
July, 1872. The claims of colore<l people for- bounties and other 
money from the (iovernment had been settled before that in the 
usual manner of all claims against the Government, just as the claims 
of white people. Their- claims were ])rosecuted by attorneys ami claim- 
agents ; multitudes of complaints, and multitudes of h'tters com])lain- 
iug of frauds in respect to this matter, came ))ouring in upon us; of 
frauds in the charge of exorbitant fees, and then of loaning money 
and taking notes fr-orn the claimants at 50 per cent. int(;rest and 100 
per cent, interest — what woirld have been that if tln^ claim had con- 
tinued a year — that is, would have absorl)ed the whole, and evcMi more 
money. !Such complaints came in, ami by a gr-eat many cr-alty de- 
vices the agents succe<Mled in defrauding the ignorard claimants of a 
great part of what was due them from the (iovernment. 1' hey of 
course appealed to the Freedmen's Bureau for protection, consiihning 
it as their friend and defender. All that could be done at fii'st was to 
prepare the claims of those who ]>iesented them, and get all the (^idence 
in their behalf without expense to them as far as [)()ssil)le; but after 
this law of March 2!>, 18(J7, went into effect, then it took upon itself the 
whole work of presenting the claims and carrying them through, and 
then paying them after they had been passed by the proper offic;ial in 
the Treasury Department. Exact fees were then allowed to the claim- 



208 

agents, Jiiul uo more. The difficulty of doiug tliis work is very bard to 
exaggerate, the letters of men who were grasping — seeking to grasp all 
that belonged to these poor claimants — who would send in their letters, 
chargiug somebody with presenting a fraudulent claim, or themselves 
getting up one, and it was very difficult to disceru the true from the 
false, to get at the real facts in a great many cases. The Commissioner 
always, through me, wrote to such persons who sent him complaints, 
that his desire was to get at the truth, and he would be thankful to 
anybody who would furnish evidence that any of his agents or officers 
were guilty of fraud ; that he wanted to know exactly the facts in the case. 
Thelaw forbade the transfer of those claims, so that every claimant had 
to be sought out himself and be paid in current funds ; could not be paid 
by sending him a check payable to his order, and, therefore, it was 
necessary sometimes to delay a payment, because there would be a good 
many claims scattered over three or four counties which our agent had 
under his charge, and it would be impossible for him to go every time a 
claim was settled to pay that particular claimant ; it would keep him 
always out of his office; and his way was to wait until he had a few 
gathered who resided in the same neighborhood, and then make a journey 
and find them as fast as possible and pay them. The amounts of these 
payments of course I need not say anything about, because the report 
has given them, and the disbursing-officer knows more about the exact 
amount of money paid than I do. A record was kept in what we called 
the claim-division of the office, which was first under charge of Major 
Fowler, and then Mr. Wm. P. Drew for a long time had charge of it. A 
record of all these cases of claims prosecuted through the Bureau was 
kept with great exactness, the date when it was presented, the amount, 
the name, the regiment to which the claimant belonged, and everything 
that was necessary to furnish a history of the case so that it could be 
traced up ; and this record was filled up, the different columns of it, as 
the claim was prosecuted and completed. When it was paid, then it was 
completed, of course, and written in as paid. Up to the time when this 
report which I have before me was written, the report of 1869, there had 
been 4,604 claims filed and settled through the Freedmen's Bureau; 
3,311 filed were then pending settlement; 18,000 such claims of colored 
soldiers were then on file in the Auditor's office waiting settlement ; 6,000 
certificates in settlement of claims temporarily suspended in the same 
office. The amount of money paid out for such claims is given in the 
same report. Up to that time it had amounted to $5,800,000 — nearly 
$6,000,000 up to that time. Then a large amount was paid afterward, 
so that the whole amount was something over $8,000,000. 

Another department of the work of the Bureau was to secure, if 
possible, justice and fair dealing between the colored people and the 
white people all over the South. At first the colored people were not 
permitted to testify in courts of justice, and, therefore, nothing could 
be done in their behalf in such courts ; that is, in some parts of the 
South that was true. In order to reach their cases, in some cases mili- 
tary commissions were established by the department commanders — and 
complaints of wrongs committed, charges of wrongs committed, were 
investigated and tried by such military commissions. Then minor 
cases of difficulty about wages and about ordinary treatment were some- 
times managed by courts of arbitration, which were established, and 
what were called bureau-courts all over the South, to take up the cases 
and investigate them and try to bring the two parties together, and 
make a settlement without any civil process. After two or three years 
the colored people had their rights secured to them by the civil-rights 



209 

bill, and they were permitted to testify in the courts ; so of course all 
that work which had previously devolved upon the Freedraeu's Bureau 
was taken away and the officers were relieved of it. The magnitude 
of this work of securing justice and fair dealing between different 
parties at the South may be indicated by reading a sentence here : One 
assistant commissioner reports 3,405 cases adjudicated in a single quarter. 
That was in the State of isTorth Carolina. If that was taken as a fair 
exponent of the business, it would give more than 100,000 cases of com- 
plaints heard and acted upon in a single year by Bureau officers in 
different parts of the South. This whole matter was also reported to 
the Commissioner, and he issued from time to time circulars and letters 
of instruction with regard to it, after consulting with the officers of the 
Government here in Washington. 

I do not know whether I have gone over the general work of the 
Bureau sufficiently ; if not, I am ready to be questioned on any other 
point. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Speak of the inspector's division. 

Answer. The Commissioner always had one or more inspecting officers, 
and kept them generally on the move visiting different officers "through- 
out the different Southern States. For a short time I acted in that 
capacity ; made one long tour of inspection through Tennessee, Missis- 
sippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, and on my way back through Alabama 
and some of the Atlantic States, visiting the various officers of the 
Bureau; but that was before the bounty business was in the hands of 
the Freedmeu's Bureau. My duty as inspecting officer then was to in- 
quire into the general management of all those various operations which 
were being carried on by the Bureau and to report to the Commissioner. 
Afterward General F. D. Sewall was the inspecting officer for a long- 
time, and made frequent tours of inspection through the South. 

Question. Of these various works of the Bureau of which you have 
testified, did they all continue until the close of the Bureau,"with the 
exceptions you have named of abandoned lands and of courts ? 

Answer. No, sir; not all. The law of 1869 required the discontin- 
uance of all the operations of the Bureau, except the payment of the 
bounties and the charge of the Freedmen's Hospital, if I recollect 
aright. In July it was discontinued; all the other operations were 
discontinued in July, 1869. 

Question. Does that apply to the educational department ! 

Answer. There was certainly a slight supervision of education, but 
no funds expended to any very large amount, because the appropria- 
tions to the Bureau for that purpose had been very nearly exhausted — 
refugees' and freedmen's fund, so called — and after that time very little 
was expended for the support of schools. 

Question. Upon the duties you have named, and during the contin- 
uance of them, what portion of the time of General Howard was occupied 
with them ? 

Answer. I should think the whole of it. 

Question. Don't you know about the nmtter ? 

Answer. Well, sir, his whole time must have been occupied in it ; he 
had no other office. I made that remark because I was not always in 
General Howard's presence and could not testify that he was every 
moment occupied with this business; but it was his business, and he was 
giving his time and strength to it. 
14 H c 



210 

Question. Witli regard to bis oversight of tlie dittereut branches of 
the work ! 

Answer. It was constant and faithful. He kept himself familiar with 
all the different branches of the Bureau work. 

Question. Were his ins])ecting officers continually employed ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; always, when here, making up their reports, they 
were frequently ordered to visit the offices, different rooms of the Office 
in Washington, and inspect them. 

Question. Were complaints which had been made to the Bureau 
promptly investigated 1 

Answer. Always. 

Question. When inquiries were made by you for information, were 
you always able to answer them from the information in jiossession of 
the Bureau ? 

Answer. If the information w^as in possession of the Bureau, I could 
always answer them promptly. Frequently letters would come which 
required information fiom the Treasury Department or from the War 
Department ; then it would be necessary to wait until communication 
-could be had with those Departments. 

Question. But, as adjutant-general, as to any matter properly within 
the Bureau, did your reference to a particular division meet with an 
immediate response? 

Answer. O, yes, sir. It was very rarely I was obliged to wait a day 
to get the necessary data to reply to a letter. 

Question. Was the organization of the home-office, in your judgment, 
a good organization ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it was. There was a division of labor which ren- 
dered it easy for the Commissioner to be made acquainted with the dif- 
ferent departments of his work. There was an adjutant-general's de- 
partment, a quartermaster's department, a commissary department, a 
claim division, a disbursing division, and a medical division, each with 
its head held responsible for the regular work of his own office. 

Question. What do you know about the liunkle matter "? 

Answer. I should like to have the question made a little more spe- 
cific. The Iluukle matter covers a good deal of ground. 

Question. Do you know how General liunkle happened to be an oflli- 
cer of the Bureau in Kentucky ? 

Answer. I don't know who recommended General Eunkle. He was 
an oificer a long time — an officer of the Army, of course — and detailed 
by the War Department; but I do not know on whose recommendation 
he was placed in the Bureau. 

Question. Did you investigate in a matter of alleged fraud upon his 
part, or improper conduct ? 

Answer. Complaints of fraud against Colonel Eunkle were made by 
certain parties iu Kentucky, and they were investigated. 

Question. The question is, did you investigate them ? 

Answer. I did not investigate them in person. 

Question. Did you have them investigated 1 

Answer. The Commissioner had them investigated, and I remember 
writing the orders for the commission to go to Kentucky — to Louisville 
and to another i)lace where he had his office, opposite Cincinnati — Cov- 
ington. I remember very well a commission being sent out — indeed, on 
two occasions. General Sewall was once sent out to investigate some 
charges that were made against Colonel Iluukle; and then I am quite 
sure the Commissioner went himself once ; and then a board was made 
up, the commission consisting of Captain Sladeu and Brevet Captain 



211 

Kuower, au officer of the Army who was then statioued in Baltimore. 
They went and made an investigation, and reported npon the subject. 
Afterward General Baird made an investigation of Colonel Eunkle's 
matters ; that was going on very nearly up to the close of the Bureau — 
within a short time, at all events — until Colonel Ruukle was discharged. 

Question. Were all these matters reported to the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. Well, sir, they were reported to the headquarters of the 
Bureau. I am not sure whether all those matters were reported to 
the Secretary of War. The Commissioner would have had the duty of 
reporting them in person, and I might not have knonn whether they 
were reported or not. 

Question. Did you make any reports yourself ? 

Answer. I made a report respecting Colonel Eunkle in the spring o 
1872, when the Commissioner was absent, and I had charge of the at 
fairs of the Bureau. Colonel Runkle at that time had been discharged, 
but his accounts were not settled ; and though I wrote to him again and 
again, urging a prompt settlement of his accounts, they remained un- 
settled, and I reported the case to the Secretary, and the amount which 
was due the Government from Colonel Kunkle, the amount of deticiency 
in his accounts, and asked what I should do with him; and the Sec- 
retary — I remember his reply very well — he said, " in such a case I 
should go for him." No, that was with reference to another man that 
I reported ; I take tliat back. With regard to Colonel Bunkle he 
said, "Give him time, give him time, and write to him again.'- I did 
write to him again, and wrote to him exactly, that I had reported him 
to the Secretary and that the Secretary Avas willing to allow him a little 
time to settle his accounts; I don't think my first letter stated definitely 
how much, but afterward I was instructed by the Secretary to give 
him until June, that was in 1872, and I did so. That was the last ; 
there was no settlement, so far as I know in his accounts, until the 
Bureau went out of existence, which was in July. 

Question. Then, so far as you know, the delay in the prosecution of 
Colonel Runkle was by direction of the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; he might have prosecuted him the moment I re- 
ported him, I suppose. 

Question. In the matter of O. C. French, formerly agent of the Bureau 
at Natchez, Miss., do you know how he happened to be appointed ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. What do you know about that deficiency or defalcation of 
his 1 

Answer. Well, I know there was a deficiency in his case amounting to 
several thousands of dollars, and I wrote to him about it in the summer 
of 1871, but the excuse was that the yellow fever had interrupted all 
business and all operations of every kind, and that he had gone away. 
I could get no communication with him for some months. After awhile, 
in the latter part of the winter, the early part of 1872, I heard of him 
in Ohio, and wrote to him there and got a reply that he was making 
every effort to settle up his accounts, and would very soon do it. Frequent 
letters passed between us, back and forth, and finally', when I had 
received what I regarded as evidence in writing that he was a defaulter, 
I reported his case to the Secretary of War. This was that same spring- 
when the Commissioner, General Howard, was absent, and it was about 
French that the Secretary remarked, " 1 should go for him," and I said 
that was all the authority I needed, I presumed, and I would send up 
the case in writing, which I did immediately, with all the evidence I 
had in my possession, against Mr. French, and with the request that 



212 

the Secretary would bring the matter before the Departaieut of Justice 
for prosecution. That is the hist I know about his case ; that it had 
^one out of the hands of the Bureau when placed in the hands of the 
Secretary of War. 

Question. Do you know anything of an alleged deficiency of St. 
Clair Mandeville, in New Orleans 1 

Answer. I know that there was an alleged deficiency; that Mandeville 
died, and that it was stated that there was a deficiency in his accounts, 
but 1 made no investigation, personally, of that matter at all. 

Question. Are you the E. AVhittlesey who brought suit against the 
United States, in the Court of Claims, to establish your status and 
right, under a retention in the Bureau, after you had been mustered out 
of the Aimy ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I did bring suit in the Court of Claims for a part 
of my pay, which I believed had been unjustly withheld. 

Question. I will ask you whether it is within your knowledge that 
General Howard, in the performance of his duties as Commissioner, 
went several times through the Southern States to meet with people and 
confer with them ? 

Answer. I remember distinctly his going through North Carolina, 
when I was assistant commissioner for that State, in 1865, and he was 
on his way further south ; went on as in charge of the Bureau ; and 
then I remember his making such journeys, but I cannot give the dates 
nor the extent. I remember his making such journeys through the 
South from time to time ; I don't remember how many, nor how far they 
extended. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Do you know whether any action was ever taken by the 
Bureau with reference to the alleged defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville f 

Answer. I know that General Sewall, who was inspector-general, 
was sent down to take charge of that matter in New Orleans ; and I 
know that he made a report on the subject. I cannot now give from 
memory the substance of that report. 

Question. Do you know whether any papers bearing on that subject 
were transferred to the War Department on the discontinuance of the 
Bureau, July 1, 1872 ? 

Answer. I do not know that the particular papers on that subject 
were transferred, but I think they must have been, because everything 
in the office was transferred, and those reports must have been in the 
records. 

By the Court : 

Question. In addition to the inspectors serving on the staff of the 
Commissioner, did the assistant commissioners have inspecting officersj 
and if so, how were they employed ? 

Answer. I think every assistant commissioner had an inspecting offi- 
cer. I had one when I was assistant commissioner in North Carolina, 
and they were employed in visiting all the different sub-offices in the 
States, and examining their records, and instructing them as to the 
proper methods of arranging the business of the Bureau. 

Question. Have you made any search since last Friday with regard 
to the number of officers ? 

Answer. I have examined the records with considerable care with 
reference to that matter. I find, on looking at what we call an appoint- 
ment-book, where a record was kept of all appointments, and also sta- 



213 

tiou-books, several of which I have examined, gathering out from them 
all, I find that in 1866 there were 883 reported on duty in the Freed- 
men's Bureau, officers, agents, and clerks, altogether. Of this number, 
484 were at that time officers of the Army. They were volunteer officers, 
whose regiments, up to that time, had not been mustered out. In 1868 
there were 141 commissioned officers, 412 agents, which would include 
the retained officers. I will not say positivel}^, though ; they might 
have been retained under the head of commissioned officers. They 
were so classified, officers, agents, and clerks — 141 officers, 412 agents, 
248 clerks, making a total of 901 in 1868. In 1869, immediately after 
the closing up of the larger operations of the Bureau, excepting the paying 
of bounties, tbc number was 15 officers, 71 agents and retained officers. 
They are then classified differently : 15 were commissioned officers of 
the Army and 72 clerks, making a total of 158 ; and in 1870 the number 
was 13 commissioned olflcers, 33 agents, and 41 clerks, making a total 
of 87. 

In addition to these, the department commanders, who were assigned 
to duty as assistant commissioners, made use of their staff-officers, and 
all the officers in command of posts, and in command of troops in the 
Southern States. They were not reported as belonging to the Freed- 
men's Bureau, because they had never been detailed, and had never 
reported to General Howard, or been assigned to duty by him, but they 
were made use of to aid in carrying on the various operations of the 
Bureau As to the number of such ofiicers, I have no means of knowing. 

Question. Who appointed the civil agents, and then the clerks ? 

Answer. The civil agents and clerks were appointed by General How- 
ard, by direction of the Secretary of War — all of them. 

Question. The officers were detailed by whom f 

Answer. The officers were detailed by the War Department, and 
ordered to report to General Howard for duty, and then assigned by 
him wherever he needed them. 

Question. What was the result of that suit of yours "? 

Answer. I gained it. 

Question. Let us have the purport of that decision. 

Answer. I entered suit for a portion of my pay which had been with- 
held under a decision of the Second Comptroller. The law of 1866 says 
that officers may be retained, with the same compensation as they were 
entitled to by their former rank, and that was decided by the Second 
Comptroller to mean simply pay, and not emoluments included. There- 
fore, a portion of what I believed myself entitled to was withheld by 
the disbursing officer. General Balloch, under that decision. I appealed 
to the Court of Claims, and the decision was that the intent of that 
law was that I should have the same pay, in all respects, that I had as 
an officer of the Army ; and I recovered it, pay and emoluments. 

Question. In your testimony, in speaking of military commissions be- 
ing held, you referred to their being held under the Bureau laws and 
civil-rights bill ; would you not on reflection add the reconstruction 
laws ! 

Answer. Yes, sir ; reconstruction laws. 

[The judge-advocate then read in evidence a letter-press co\)j of a let- 
ter which the accused admitted was a letter-press copy of an original 
communication written by him, authorizing his disbursing officer, Maj. 
J. M. Brown, to sign Treasury certificates for him, which was attached 
to the record and marked Exhibit R\ there being no objection on the 
part of the accused. | 

The court then adjourned, at 3.20 p. m., until to-morrow at 11 o'clock, 
a. m. 



214 



TWEXTY-PIRST DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No 181G F Street, 

Washington, B. C, A2)ril 7, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, TJ. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, TJ. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 
G. Col. J. J. Eevuolds, Third Cavalry, IJ. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Mnj. Asa Bird (lardner. Judge- Advocate, IT. S. A., judge-advocate j 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved 

Eliphalet Whittlesey resumed the stand, in the presence of the 
accused, and his previous testimony having been read to him, it w^as 
pronounced by him to be correct as recorded. 

Examination. 
By the Court : 

Question. How long and what time were you acting Commissioner of 
the Freedmeii's Bureau ? Give exact dates, if you have anything to 
refer to. « 

Answer. Technically, I never was acting Commissioner at all. The 
law of August 3, 1868, provides that in case of a vacancy in the com- 
missionership the acting adjutant-geueral shall i3erform the duties of 
Commissioner ; but nothing is said about the mere absence of the Com- 
missioner. There never was a vacancy in the oftice of Commissioner; 
but frequently the Commissioner would be ordered away on some duty, 
and then his duties would naturally devolve upon me, as being next in 
rank, and I alwaj^s acted under the direction of the Secretary of War in 
such cases. I never signed my name as acting Commissioner, and 
whenever I addressed the Secretary of War I signed my name as acting 
adjutant-geueral, in the absence ot the Commissioner. Now, with re- 
gard to time, I could not give the dates without referring to the records, 
but there were two periods when the Commissioner w^as absent for a 
considerable time, under orders from the W^ar Department or the Presi- 
dent. One was in the autumn of 1871; he was away several weeks. 
That was the time, I think, that he went to inspect General Runkle's 
office — I am not quite sure; and in the spring of 1872 he went away 
somewhere about the 1st of March, and was absent till a little after the 
1st of June — some time in June. During all that time I had charge of 
the afiairs of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. On this last absence, from general report, w^here did you sup- 
pose he had gone to ? 

Answer. He was on a tour among the Indians in Arizona then. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 
Question. When the Commissioner, Brigadier-General Howard, was 
absent in Arizona, from March to June, do you know whether he was 



215 

thus absent ou a detail sought by himself, or whether he was detailed 
as a military officer, without his prior knowledge or consent? 

[Objected to by a member of the court.] 

The Judge- Advocate said : I will state my reasons for asking the 
question. It appears from the evidence which has been drawn out, both 
by the questions of the court and the questions of the accused, that 
General Howard was absent a certain period of time in Arizona. The 
question of his responsibility naturally arises, and I wish to know 
whether he was absent in Arizona on a detail from a superior authority, 
which he could not avoid, because the question would then arise whether, 
under such circumstances, he would be technically, legally, or morally 
responsible for anything which might have happened in his office during 
his absence. The witness has just stated specifically the length of time 
during which the Commissioner was absent, and I thought it was desir- 
able to ascertain whether he was absent on that occasion on a detail 
sought by himself, or whether he was detailed as a military officer, with- 
out his prior knowledge or consent, and I submit that it would have a 
very material bearing with reference to his responsibility during that 
period. 

[The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being opened, 
the accused and his counsel being j)resent, the judge-advocate an- 
nounced the decision of the court is that the objection is sustained.] 

Question. You were asked yesterday as to the appointment, or detail 
rather, of Major Runkle in the Freedmen's Bureau j have you any recol- 
lection how that detail was made ? 

Answer. I have not; I have no recollection. There were a great 
many officers detailed, and I could not recollect as to any particular 
one what was done. 

Question. Do you know when O. 0. French's appointment as an agent 
of the Freedmen's Bureau was revoked by the Commissioner ? 

Answer. I cannot give the date from recollection ; no, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether he continued after such revocation 
to act as an agent of the Bureau ? 

Answer. I would say on general principles that he did not. I cannot 
say that 1 know that he did not continue to act in that capacity. It 
would be a very exceptional case if he did. I do not know. 

Eecross-exam tnaiio7i. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

The Accused (through his counsel) said: With the permission of the 
court I will state that the object we have in making the inquiries which 
I am about to submit is to save expense to the Government in having 
General Whittlesey summoned here again. We wish to inquire into a 
branch of the case which has not been brought out on the part of the 
Government, and we do it at this time solely to save expense and to 
save time, as he is going away. 

Question. General Whittlesey, when General Howard went away in 
the spring of 1872, to Arizona, did he leave any directions with you 
with regard to making a proper representation to the committees of 
Congress with regard to securing an appropriation to euable the Bureau 
to be wound up properly, and its record put in proper condition for 
turning over ? 

Answer. I remember he talked with me often about the matter. He 
had already made his application in writing for an appropriation, and 
requested me to keep watch of it. 



• 216 

Question. Please state, tben, what you did iu that regard. 

Auswer. I went before tbe Committee on Appropriations and pre- 
sented tbe case to tbem as well as I could, urging that a sufficient ap- 
propriation be made to pay for everytbing, and tbat time be given to 
close up tbe Bureau properly, and perfect its records, before turning it 
over to any successor. 

Question. What sum did you ask for 2 

Answer. I do not remember tbe sum. It bad been asked for iu 
writing l)y General Howard. 

Question. "Was it some small sum — fifty or a bundrcd tbousand dol- 
lars ! 

Answer. I would ratber not state tbe sum witbout looking at tbe 
records, for I don't remember precisely tbe amount asked for. 

Question. Was your request favorably entertained by tbe committees 
at first '! 

Answer. It seemed to be so ; it seemed to me to be so. 

Question. Wby did it fail ! 

Answer. I do not know as I can tell wby it failed. I supposed tbe 
bill was passed, as General Howard bad requested, until tbe morn- 
ing tbe bill actually did pass ordering tbe Bureau closed peremp- 
torily on tbe 1st of July, 1872; and wben I read in tbe morning 
l^apers tbe report of its passing in tbat sbape, I went then to tbe 
committee of tbe Senate immediately, and not finding tbe cbairmau ot 
tbat committee, I addressed bim a note, urging tbat General Howard 
being absent, ougbt to have time after bis return to close up tbe affairs, 
of tbe Bureau and i)ut everytbing in good sbape before transferring to 
bis successor. After writing tbat note, bowever, 1 saw tbe report of 
tbe proceedings of Congress in tbe Globe, and found tliere a letter from 
tbe Secretary of War addressed to Mr. Garfield, tbe cbairmau of tbe 
committee iu tbe House; and, judging from tbat letter tbat it was on 
tbat ground tbat Mr. Garfield bad urged tbe passage of tbe bill as it did 
I)ass, I felt tbat it was not proper for me, a subordinate officer, to be 
attempting to do in Congress wbat was manifestly not in accordance 
witb tbe wisbes of tbe Secretary of War, and I immediately went to a 
member of tbe committee of tbe Senate, and requested bim to Avitbdraw 
my note, stating my reasons, tbat I did not tbink it rigbt for me, or 
proper for me, as a subordinate officer, to act iu opposition to tbe 
wisbes of tbe Secretary of War in tbat matter. 

Question. General Howard was away at tbat time ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Tbe date of tbe passage of tbe bill, I see, is June 10, 1S72 — 
date of tbe ai)proval of tbe bill f 

Answer. I know it was in June. I could not give tbe date now. 

Question. He was away at tbat time ? 

Answer. He was away at tbat time. 

Question. Wbat, in your belief, is tbe reason tbat tbat appropriation 
failed ? 

Tbe Judge- Advocate said : I object to tbe question. Tbe court will 
remember, probably, tbat to a question I propounded some time ago, tbe 
accused, tbrougb bis counsel, objected, on tbe ground, substantially, tbat 
I was asking tbe witness for bis opinion or belief, instead of asking bim 
as to bis actual knowledge. I object to tbis question on tbe ground 
tbat tbe witness is not an expert, and would not be testifying to any- 
tbing in tbe line of bis duty, but as to tbe reasons on wbicb a legislative 
body like Congress bad acted. 

The Accused said, (tbrougb bis counsel:) Tbe matter tbat tbe judge- 



217 

advocate refers to was this : General Ballocb had been asked a question, 
to which I objected that it was improper to ask him a question which 
woukl show the course of reasoning in his own mind ; that he ought to 
be asked the result to which he arrived ; that the result might be right 
and the course of reasoning wrong ; and the court did not sustain the 
objection. Here I do not ask for anything but a fact ; his opinion about 
a fact. I do not wish to know the way in wbich he gets at it. I wish 
to know his opinion as a person who was interested and had a knowl- 
edge of the particular matter. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced the decision of the court that the objection is sustained.] 

Question. General Whittlesey, did you also ask the committee for an 
extension of time, so that General Howard might have a month or two, 
or three, after he returned, to close up the affairs of his Bureau ? 

Answer. I did; I suggested to him 

By the Court : 

Question. To whom 1 

Answer. To the Committee on Ap])ropriations — that General Howard 
ought to have reasonable time after his return. They asked how much. 
I said, "Well, say three months;" something of that kind. 1 did not 
wish to specify the time. 

Question. Was that the House committee or the Senate committee? 

Answer. That was the House committee. I never went before the 
Senate committee in any other way than by writing that note I spoke of. 

By^the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Did these objections of the Secretary of War extend, also, 
to this question of time? 

Answer. I have not read the Secretary's letter since that day, but my 
recollection of it is that he expressed a preference that the affairs of 
the Bureau should be transferred to him at once. His letter itself is a 
matter that can be easily referred to. 

Question. Upon the receipt of that letter, then, the bill was reported 
without an appropriation and without an enlargement of time ? 

Answer. I do not think it was reported without an appropriation ; the 
bill itself will show as to that matter. 

Question. I mean the particular appropriation for closing up. 

Answer. This matter of an appropriation puzzles me a little, because 
I do not know what specific appropriation the question refers to. We 
were out of funds, and the Commissioner had asked before he went 
away for a deficiency appropriation, so as to pay up what might be due 
at the end of that year, July 1, 1872 ; then he also asked for appropria- 
tions for the fiscal year ending July, 1873. That was asked for, suppos- 
ing that possibly the Bureau might be continued. That appropriation, 
I think, was passed substantially as he asked it. Whether it was ex- 
actly the same amount or reduced, I cannot here state ; but an appro- 
priation was made for carrying on the operations of the Freedraen's Bu- 
reau after it was transferred to the War Department. 

Question. Upon receipt of that letter, then, the bill was reported 
without an appropriation and without an enlargement of time? 

Answer. Have I not answered that question sutticiently ? 

Question. You have not answered in regard to the time. 

Answer. In regard to time, the bill as passed closed the Bureau ; that 
is, transferred it to the War Department on the 1st July. [Witness 
here referred to the act of Congress.] I think my answer was substan- 



218 ■ 

tially correct. Here is au appropriation for tlie collection and pay.nent 
of the bounty, prize money, and other legitimate claims of colored soldiers 
and sailors, salaries, &c., $100,000. Then it provides that the Bureau 
of Eefugees Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands shall be discontinued 
from and after June 30, 1872, and that all acts and parts of acts per- 
taining to the collection and payment of bounties or other moneys due 
to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines shall remain in force until other- 
wise ordered by Congress, the same to be carried into effect by the 
Secretary of War. Then another appropriation is made for the Freed- 
nien's Hospital in the same act. But, as I said before. General Howard 
also asked for a deficiency appropriation to complete the work of the 
previous year; which was not granted. 

By the Court : 

Question. On his return from Arizona in 1872, was General Howard 
engaged on other duty connected with Indian affairs, and was he or not 
so engaged until his return to Arizona a second time ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ', he was engaged in making up his report some of 
the time, but he was in his oflice — at the ofiice of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau — until it closed. 

[The testimony of the Avitness was then road to him, and pronounced 
by him to be correct as recorded.] 

George W. Ballocii, a former witness, was called, and came before 
the court, and in the presence of the accused testified as follows : 

Direct examination resumed. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state, if you can, what is contained in the irregular 
bounty-fund register to which you have here referred, in your testimony 
of a few days ago. 

Answer. A record of the names of the soldiers, the regiments to 
which they belonged, (some of them, not in all cases,) the amount of the 
bounty retained from them, the name of the officer enlisting them in 
most cases, the States to whose quota they were assigned in most cases, 
and the time of payment. 

Question. Does the record contain any evidence as to whom the case 
was sent for payment '! 

Answer. In some cases it indicates whom the payment was made 
through, but not in all cases. 

Question. Where would one have to apply in order to get that in- 
formation ? 

Answer. I do not think the information could be had as to where the 
payments were made. 

Question. Would the letter-press-books show any ? 

Answer. I do not think any of the payments made from that fund 
went into the letter-press-book. It may in some cases. 

Question. Eeferring now to Mariom Ilord's case, about which I asked 
you on your previous examination, but which question I for the time 
withdrew, will you please state whether the letter-press-book shown you 
now contains a record of the place and date of transmittal of the check 
in that case'^ 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Is this letter your letter ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When was that letter sent ? 



219 

Answer. May 13th, 1869, I judge. 

I The jndge advocate read the letter in evidence. A copy is attached 
to the record and marked Exhibit S^, there being no objection on the 
part of the accused.] 

Question. These letters that have been introduced here from the 
letter-press-book iu the course of your testimony only have the date 
carried into the letter-press-book. Can you state whether the letters 
were written on printed headings or not ? 

Answer. They were. ' 

Question. And the printed heading would not be transferred ? 

Answer. They were all written on printed headings. 

Question. And that is the reason why nothing but the date and the 
other ink j)ortions appear ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. While JMaj. B. P. Kunkle was on duty as a sub-agent of 
the Bureau, do you know whether any complaints were ever received or 
made with reference to his conduct as an officer of the Bureau "? If so, 
please state whatever you know upon the subject. 

Answer. I recollect that a complaint was made to the Commissioner 
by some one, I do not know who, and he sent out a commission to inves- 
tigate the matter. 

Question. Do you know what was the result of that commission ? 

Answer. I do not. I presume the report is on file iu the archives. 

Question. Did you testify in the Eunkle court-martial, held in Louis- 
ville iu 1872 ? 

Answer. I did. I went out there two separate times. 

Question. Did you then say anything to him about the delivery of 
$1,331.03 to pay claimants where erroneous payments had been made to 
others "? 

Answer. I recollect that after I came out of the court-martial room, 
where I testified about those three cases that came up the other 
day, that amounted to some six hundred and odd dollars, he called 
my attention to the fact that I omitted to state that I actually gave 
him the money to pay those cases. I used the expression upon a severe 
cross-examination by the judge-advocate. I used the expression " I took 
the responsibility to do it." And after I came out of the court. Major 
Eunkle called my attention to the fact, and asked me why I did not 
state that I actually gave him the money in order that he might keep 
his promise with me. I forgot to do it. 

Question. Did you take any subsequent action in regard to that ? 

Answer. After my return to Washington, General Howard told me 
that General Vincent had spoken to him about my testimony, and said 
that that portion of it looked bad. I went over to the War Department 
and saw General Vincent about it and explained to him about it. I ex- 
plained to him that I forgot to mention the fact of giving to General 
Eunkle the money ; and he suggested to me, in order to make my testi- 
mony all right, that I should write those facts to the Secretary of War ; 
and I did so, and this is the letter explaining my testimony. I did it at 
General Vincent's suggestion. 

[The letter was offered in evidence and read to the court. It is 
attached to the record and marked Exhibit T^, there being no objec- 
tion on the part of the accused.] 

Question. When you gave that money— $1,331.03— to Major Eunkle, 
did you then know that he understood that it was money from your own 
private funds 1 



• 220 

Aiiswor. lie did ; lio i;avo ino his note for it, I am sony to say it has 
not boon ])aid. 

(^nostion. KofoiTinn' to indorsoinont on l^^xliibit T', wliich is a com- 
numioation tVoni l>rovet Liontonanl -Colonel J Ionian to you, do yon know 
Avho made the indorsement that is on that exhibit ? 

Answer. I i>resnmo My. Kay nmde it ; it looks like his writing. 1 see 
by the date I was ont of town at the time; had gone to New England 
with my mother. 

Qnestion. INlr. K'ay was ehief olerk in your olliee? 

Answer, lie was elerk in charge of the boniity division. 

Question. Authorized to sign your nanu^ in your absence? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know when O. C. French's appointment as agent of 
the I'reeduuMrs IJureau was re\ oked I 

Answer. 1 Ihink his appointuient as a paid agent was revoked to take 
efteet on the .'list of jMarcii, 1871. 

Question, llow long after that did ho continue to act as agent for the 
Bureau without pay f 

Answer, lie was acting when 1 was relieved, October 11. I do not 
know how much longer he acted. 

Question. Keferring to the ISt. Clair ]Mandeville transaction, do you 
know whether any cash and receipt books were kept by Mandeville; 
if so, did you ever receive them ? 

Answer. 1 never received any ol' his books. I think a copy was sent 
to me once. 

Questiou. You say you think you received copies of his cash and re- 
ceipt books ? 

Answer. I think I did. 

Question. Do you know what became of those books? 

Answer. They were not books; they were on sheets of paper. I left 
them in the Bureau. 

Question. Can you state positively now whether you received them 
or not ; you say you think you did .' 

Answer. I have not any doubt about it. 

Question. By the way, with reference to that 81,331.03 that I spoke 
of, can von tell what claims you gave that money to Major Kunkle to 
pay? 

Answer. To indemnify him ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I could not. 

Question. AVas any record kept in your office from which you could 
ascertaiu .' 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. In your testimony you have stated substantially that agents 
were rcijuired to make returns of all uupaid claims on hand at the end 
of the mouth and thus enable you to keep trace of money sent. 

Answer. Keep track. 

Question. Did you recpiire that iu the cases of agents to whom you sent 
money and vouchers ? 

Answer. 1 did. 1 have one of the reports here if you want to see it. 

Question. Will you show the form of report ? 

Answer. There is one from ^Major Coates, who was stationed at New 
Berne. It was the only one I could lay my hand on at the time I looked. 

Question. Please state what the monthly statement contains, and that 
will cover the question without putting it iu as an exhibit. 

Answer. It contained the name of the soldier, his company and regi- 



221 

ment, and tlic amount of money tliat tlio oHit'cr had in liis Lands. This 
rei)ort of Major Coates was a very detailed report; perhai).s more in de- 
tail — 1 do not think it was more in detail, thouj^h, than all of them 
w<'re. I think they were all the same way; some of them stated the 
day they received the money from ine. This does not. This was ac- 
companied by the certificate of tin; cashier of the national hank that he 
actually had the money in bank at that tinui. 

Question. When did you first require a montlily leport of receipts 
and disbursmciiits to be niade by those ajjents i? 

Answer. 1 do not remember. 

Question. Was it in 1S0<S or 18G0, or was it not until 1871 :? 

Answer. This one was made in June, 1809; it was previous to that, 
as early as 1808. 

Question. That you required all agents ? 

Answer. I am quite certain it was as early as 18fj8. It f^reu' out of the 
necessities of the service. These thiuf^s came up. These regulations 
were instituted as the emergency seemed to re<iuire. 

(Question. When you had sent monc^y by check for voucliers which 
were already in your possessioJi, did you require from the agents a 
return of the checks ? 

Answer. They could not return the check ; the check went into the 
bank or depository. Government depositories never return checks. 

(Question. I mean a list, a monthly return in the form of a report. 

Answer. TJiey acknowledged the receipt of a check to nie when it 
was received, and at the end of the month all tli<' money they received 
during the month was reported on this memoiandum-report which was 
furnislied. 

(Question. IJut, as I said before, you would send money by check to 
pay a claimant, where you already liad in your possession a receipted 
voucher? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. The agent would acknowledge at the time the receipt of 
that check ; but suppose he had that check in his possession two or 
three or more months, did you require him at the end of each mouth 
to make a rei)ort to you of all the checks he had on hand '! 

Answer. The report which they made at the end of each month 
included every check they had on hand. The reason for requiring 
agents to report checks uncalled for, in their hands, was this : claim- 
ants or some other interested i)erson would report from time to time 
that such a claimant had not been paid, but on looking up the matter I 
would Mud that the check had been sent some time before to such an 
agent. Well, if I looked at that agent's last monthly report, and 1 saw 
he had that check on hand, I couhl tell whether the claimant had been 
actually i)aid or not, or whether whoever wrote the letter was just try- 
ing to make a complaint. It gave ine a chance to know whether the 
claimant had been actually i)aid or not. 

(Question. IIow^ did you charge the agents with cases sent them ; what 
sort of an account did you keep with them 'i 

Answer. When the money and the vouchers went at the same time. 
I had a regular book, and for the large stations 1 had a book for each 
station, and the smaller ones, several would be put on one book. At the 
date I sent out vouchers I charged all those vouchers, and whenever 
they returned one, in an o[)posite line I said returned, such a date ; so 
all the time 1 knew by looking over that list just what vouchers they 
had in their hands. 

(Question. Do you know what has become of those books ? 



222 

Answer. I bare got tliem all. They arc my own private books. 

Questiou They were not then tnrnedover to the Adjutant-General "? 

Answer. No, sir; they did not belong to him at all. They were my 
private cash-accounts with each agent. 

Question. Don't you think that those books were necessary for the 
proper understanding of your oflice as transferred to your successor? 

Answer. They have been necessary for me to have every week since. 
There has not been a week since that I have not been called upon to 
furnish some information, which I could not have done if 1 had not 
those books. 

Question. Eeferriug to the deficiency of $3,754.69, on page 49, Ex- 
hibit B, which you allege arose in part from paying bounties a second 
time, from what fund did you actually make the payment a second 
time to the correct parties ? 

Answer. This deficiency has been sized down to the twenty-eight hun- 
dred and some odd dollars that I turned over to Captain McMillan when 
I closed my account. That I paid out of my own pocket ; but I have 
claimed re-imbursement for part of it on one of those interest-funds. I 
sold a couple of house-lots up in the city here to raise the money to pay 
McMillan that difference ; but, as I said before, I have claimed a repay- 
ment for a part of it out of that interest-money. 

Question. Bid you ever take up that interest-money in your accounts 
for pay, bounty, and prize-money f 

Answer. J did not; for it did not belong there. 

Question. Keferring to your testimony on the subject of this $3,754,69, 
please explain your statement, on page 49 of Exhibit B, with reference 
to your testimony given on this point. 

Answer. In some of these cases I put in a second set of vouchers, but 
they were all disallowed. That is the reason I had to pay over the 
$2,849.69. I thought 1 was right in putting them in ; but after I had 
put in a lot of them I found they were all going to be disallowed, and I 
stopped. They were all disallowed. I paid that mone}', and I claimed 
it, as 1 said before — part of it in this interest-fund. 

Question. Keferring to your testimony on the subject of why you left 
your retained vouchers and papers in the possession of your successor, 
can you give any other reason than that you have already given in your 
testimony whj" you left them ? 

Answer. 1 cannot, as that seemed to be sufficient. It was necessary 
for him to have access to my duplicate vouchers in order to substantiate 
payments in case a person should claim he had not been paid. I left 
them there for his convenience. 

Question. Do you know whether the register here in court, but not in 
evidence, marked "lietained-bounty fund," was or not a record of the 
Bureau ''. 

Answer. It was a record of the Bureau just so far as that fund per- 
tained to the Bureau. 

Question. What became of it when the Bureau was discontinued? 

Answer. It was accidentally taken over to my house and piled up 
with the other books ; staid there a few weeks ; Avhen called for I hunted 
it up and sent it over to General Howard. I did not know it was there. 

Question. Was it not kept with the vouchers for the expenditures"? 

Answer. While in the Bureau? 

Question. Yes, sir; while in the Bureau. 

Answer. While the book was in the Bureau it was kept in my room. 

Question. Was it or not kept with the vouchers for expenditures? 



223 

Answer. Tbo vouchers were iu tlie same room ; they were not kept 
together. 

Question. Did you ever give a bond for the faithful performance of 
your duties as a disbursing officer under General Howard f 

Answer. I never did. I was a detailed officer of the Army, and de- 
tailed officers are not required to give bonds. 

Question. When did you begin tirst, iu your office, to keep a book of 
letters received 1 

Answer. The 1st of January, 1871. 

Question. What were the "general instructions" given by the Com- 
missioner as to the identification of claimants ? 

Answer. I cannot testify any further than I have aln^ady on the sub- 
ject. 

Question. You have stated that agents were required to keep a com- 
plete record of the name, company, &c., of the claimant, where a pay- 
ment was made, and by whom the claimant was identified. Can you 
state whether or not that requirement was enforced and a complete 
record kept by all the agents 1 

Answer. I cannot, of my own personal knowledge, because I never 
visited any of the stations. The inspector when he was sent out mast 
have looked into those matters, and I have no doubt but what a record 
Avas kept, unless it was some insignificant i^lace where only a few cases 
were paid — scattering cases, as I denominated them in my testimony. 

Question. I think you stated you cannot recollect the date when a 
monthly return of unpaid claims was first required to be kept. Can 
you state whether or not, after they were required, that all the agents 
made such returns regularly ? 

Answer. I do not know of any exceptions ; I do not remember any. 

Question. Please state where are the confidential letters that you have 
spoken of in your testimony, but which were not recorded in the letter- 
books. 

Answer. I had a letter-press book for confidential letters and tele- 
grams, and that was lost at the same time. It was left in my desk a-ud 
disappeared at the same time that retained fee-book did ; and there 
were several other books disappeared at the same time. 

Question. Do you recollect whether the direction of the Second Aud- 
itor for you to retain fees due attorneys was a verbal or written direc- 
tion ? 

Answer. It was a verbal direction, as I stated in my testimony. He 
did not give it to me iu writing. 

Question. Do you recollect whether he authorized you to retain these 
fees after you had beeu relieved from duty in the Bureau? 

Answer. He did not personally. I have testified that I consulted Mr. 
Harmon iu relation to the matter. He said there would be nothing 
irregular iu my retaining them until my accounts were finally settled, 
and then to turn them over to whomever I might be directed to. 

Question. Eeferring to what you have already testified with reference 
to pages 44 and 45 of Exhibit B, part first, can you state why iu your ad- 
ditions you have not embraced the deficits resulting from payments to 
right persons in cases where prior payments were made to wrong per- 
sons 1 

Answer. I added up the amount on page 18, and took the footing 
of the other amounts, as reported, supposing it was correct. 

Question. Eeferring to page 30, part first, of Exhibit B, and your testi- 
mony already given, do you know whether or not tlie suit against 



224 

O. C. French was commenced at the solicitation of the Commissioner or 
of the War Department. 

Answer, I do not of my own knowledge. My impression is that it 
was commenced at the solicitation of the Commissioner, or the acting- 
commissioner, General Whittlesey. 

Question. Referring to your testimony on the subject of the irregular 
fund, wh y do you say that this irregular fund was in no sense public 
funds of the United States 1 

Answer. Because it was never drawn from the Treasury on any appro- 
priation of Congress. I got the phraseology from the w^ords of the Sec- 
ond Comptroller himself. 

Question. Do you know what use was made of that fund when it was 
in the possession of the department commander, Major-General Butler, 
before it came into your possession ? 

Answer. I do not. 

(Question. Do you know for whose benefit that fund was invested in 
bonds under the authority of the act of March 2, 18G7 ? 

Answer. It states in the act. 

Question. Have you got a list of those individuals for whose benefit 
it was invested '! 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Did yon ever receive a list? 

Answer. I did not. The list would be the persons who were unpaid 
at that time. 

Question. How did you know whom to pay ! 

Answer. It could not be. The sum accruing from the interest of those 
bonds could not be divided as jirescribed in the law to each of the indi- 
viduals, and that is the reason why it was invested for them in general, 
because we were pajiug them every day, and you could not go to work 
and look up an account every day just to show the pro-rata amount 
due every man. That was why it was invested in general. 

Question. When that money was turned over to you, did you not have 
a list furnished you as to whom this money belonged"? 

Answer. When it was turned over in the first instance ? 

Question. Yes, sir. 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it is in that book, [pointing to the register of re- 
tained-bounty fund, which is in court but not in evidence.] 

Question. Ileferriug to your testimony already given with reference 
to taking vouchers for this irregular bounty-fund expended by you, 
why did you not continue to take the vouchers pertaining to said fund 
in the regular way, as suggested by the Second Comptroller ? 

Answer. I did use the same form all the time ; I do not think I took 
them in duplicate ; I think I only took one cop}'. I had a printed form ; 
used the same form all the time. 

Question. Has your attention ever been directed to the act of March 
3, 1817, section 2, directing that all accounts whatever, in which the 
United States are concerned either as debtor or creditor, shaU be settled 
and adjusted in the Treasury Department ? 

Answer. It has not. 

Question. You have referred in your testimony to a congressional 
investigating committee. What committee was that ? 

Answer. It was the Committee on Education and Labor of the House 
of liepresentatives. 

Question. Do you know whether those bonds were invested prior to the 
passage of that act ? I mean whether that irregular bounty-fund was 
invested prior to the passage of that act of March 2, 18G7, by the Com- 
missioner or not. 



225 

Answer. It was not. When it was turned over to me, (I testified the 
other day, you know,") a large amount was turned over to me in bonds ; 
those were afterward sold after the passage of this act, and purchase 
was made. 

By the Court : 

Question. When first received by you, it was all in bonds, you mean 1 

Answer. Eighty-four thousand dollars was. 

Question. You so testified ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And that run along until you sold it? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I used the accrued interest and the premium to 
make up what was turned over to me short by Colonel James, of North 
Carolina. Colonel James spent several thousand dollars of this fund, 
and I earned tbat by the interest and the premium. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Have you ever been required at any time to render any 
statement with reference to this irregular bounty-fund except to Gen- 
eral Howard ! 

Answer. No, sir ; not that I remember. I testified that I had sent 
the vouchers to the Treasury, just the same as I did as to all funds, until 
I was told to stop. 

Question. You said in your testimony that this matter had been in- 
vestigated by a congressional investigating committee. 

Answer. Well, it came up, among other things, at the time this con- 
gressional investigating committee was in session, and it was one of the 
things that was investigated. 

Q. Did they require any detailed statement from you as to what had 
been done with that fund ? 

Answer. I do not remember. I will look over the documents and see. 
[Witness was shown the document.] I find that they inquired about it 
in general terms. 

Question. Do you know anything about an alleged investment of 
$250,000 public funds in June, July, and August, 1871, in United States 
bonds ? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Referring to Exhibit B, part second, page 8, do you know 
anything about an alleged investment of $331,875, i)ublic funds, in 
United States bonds ? 

Answer. I know about that investment. 

Question. Who made that investment I 

Answer. I made it. 

Question. By whose authority, or under whose direction, if any, did 
you act iu that matter ? 

Answer. Under the direction of General Howard, Commissioner of 
the Freedmeh's Bureau. 

Question. Referring to the $250,000-public-fund investment, to which 
1 referred a moment ago, who made that investment "? 

Answer. I made it. 

Question. By whose authority, or under whose direction, if any, did 
you act in that matter I 

Answer. The same as in the first case. 

Question. State it. 

Answer. General Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. In what capacity did you make those investments *? 
15 H c 



226 

Answer. As chief disbursing officer of tlie Freediueu's Bureau, iu my 
official capacity. 

Question. Do you know how much the net amount of interest was 
aHeged to be ? 

Answer. Which one '? 

Question. Of the $334,875-bond transaction. 

Answer. The interest and premiuui amounted to $19,440.57. 

Question. Tliat letter, W, on page 8 of Exhibit B, is that your let- 
ter on the subject "i? 

Answer. I presume it is a copy of my letter. 

Question. Were any vouchers filed for this sum of $19,440.57, net 
amount of interest and premium, in the Treasury ? 

Answer. I filed with the Third Auditor, a couple of months ago, my 
iluplicate vouchers for that disbursement. At the time I was relieved 
from duty I made up the account, and left the accoxmt current and 
vouchers with General Howard, to file in the Treasury, in the Third 
Auditor's Office. He mislaid them, and I supposed they were there, until 
six weeks or two months ago, I ascertained they were not, and I tiled my 
dui)licate copies in the Treasury. 

Question. How Avere those vouchers approved, if at all, and by 
whom ? 

Answer. They were approved by the Commissioner, General Howard. 

Question. How were they approved, on abstracts or across the face 
of the vouchers I 

Answer. In this case, I think, the vouchers themselves were ap- 
proved. 

Question. This case of the net amount of interest and premium, 
$19,440.57 f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you, since filing the vouchers in thg Treasury, cov- 
ering the expenditure of the $19,440.57, heard anything officially from 
the Treasury in reference to those vouchers? 

Answer. 1 have received a notice that one of them has been disal- 
lowed, as I had already ])ut it into another account. 

Question. Is this a correct copy of your letter? [Handing letter to 
witness.] 

Answer. Yes, that is a copy. That is my signature. 

[The judge advocate then read the following letter in evidence, there 
being no objection on the part of the accused :] 

Washington, D. C, Fchruary 26, 1874. 
Hon. Allan Rutherford, 

Third Auditor, United States Treasuri/ : 
Sir: lleferring to your letter of the 24Mi instant, incloshiff a statement of differences 
arising; iu s])ecial settlement of my accounts as chief disbursing oflicer, Bureau Kefugees, 
Freednien and A'landoned Lands, and calling attention to statement tlieridn that 
voucher 2, snjjplemeutary account-current for October, 1871, amounting to |1C,652.25, 
has been disallowed on the ground tliat I liad ahviady been credited witLi same amount 
for same i>ayment in vcmcher 90, March 24, 1871, 1 have the honor to state that this 
matter has taken me eutirely by surprise, and that it will re(iuire somi* little time for 
uie to examiue into it, aiul discover when the mistake occurred, if any has occurred, 
and expect to be able to explain any discrepancy which may at ]u'eseut exist. If that 
cannot be done, I stand ready, of course, to make good any sum which may bo found 
due on tinal settlement of my accounts. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. AV. BALLOCH, 
Late Brig. Gen., and Chief Disbursing Officer Bureau, 4'C- 
OfiScial copy furnished General Howard for his iuforniation. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Late Bvt. Brig. Gen,, and Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Bureau Refugees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands. 



227 

Question. Is that a copy of the letter which you furnished General 
Howard ? 

Answer. It is. 

Question. Have you, since you received the notification from the 
Treasury of this matter, looked into it to ascertain whether that voucher 
had been rendered by you in a previous account or not? 

Answer. I found it before they found it in the Treasury, and reported 
it to General Howard. I found the mistake myself before they found it. 

Question. Then what am I to understand from this phrase in your 
letter to the Third Auditor, '' This matter has taken me entirely by sur- 
prise, and it will require some little time for me to examine into it and 
discover where the mistake occurred, if any has occurred^" 

Answer. I found it two days before he did. I was surprised when I 
found it myself. 

Question. When you found out this mistake yourself, were you satis- 
fied that you had already rendered this voucher — rendered a duplicate 
of this voucher — to the Treasury, and claimed credit therefor"? 

Answer. I was. I found a terrible blunder had been committed 
somewhere. 

Question. What did you then mean when you said in this letter that 
you expected to be able to explain any discrepancy which might at present 
exist? 

Answer. I do expect to be able to explain it ; at least, I hope to be 
able to explain it as soon as I get time to examine my accounts. You 
have kept me so busy here during the last fortnight that I have not had 
time to do anything. After you get through with me, I propose to go 
into the matter. 

Question. Do you know whether or not you had previously rendered 
that voucher to the Treasury, of which a duplicate was rendered, of this 
net amount of the premium and interest account ? 

Answer. I do, as 1 stated. I discovered the fact myself. 

Question. Then what do you mean in this letter when you state that 
if you cannot explain any discrepancy which may at present exist, 
you stand ready, of course, to make good any sum which may be found 
due on final settlement of your accounts"? 

Answer. I mean just what I say: that if I cannot explain the dis- 
crepancy — if I cannot find where it occurred — I stand ready to make 
the amount good, as any other disbursing officer has to do. A dis- 
bursing officer is allowed a chance to explain ; if he cannot explain, he 
pays. 

Question. When did the Commissioner approve that voucher for the 
$10,052.25 ? Did he approve it before or after you had rendered it to the 
Treasury ? 

Answer. He must have approved it before. 

Question. What voucher was that which vou rendered to the Treasury 
for the sum of |1G,652.25 -? 

Answer. It was a voucher of A.Ii. Shepherd & Bro. for heating-appa- 
ratus in Clark Hall. 

By the COURT : 
Question. Where was Clark Hall ? 
Answer. One of the dormitories of Howard CTuiversity. 

By the Judge Advocate : 
Question. What authority was there for making an expenditure of 
that nature ? 



228 

Answer. The general authority of the Bureau law allowing exp ndi- 
ture for schools and asylums. 

Question. What description of an institution is this Howard Univer- 
sity? 

Answer. It is an educational institution, founded mainly for the edu- 
cation of colored pupils ; but white pupils are not shut out ; they can go, 
if they want to. I have not the corporation charter here. It was 
chartered in 18G5, I think, by Congress. 

Question. Do you know anything with reference to the employment, 
as alleged, of $36,314.77, money appropriated for the collection and pay- 
ment of " bounty, prize-money, and other legitimate claims of colored 
soldiers and sailors," for the use of schools and asylums during the year 
1871 ? 

Answer. I don't know anything about it in particular. 

Question. Do you know whether any sum or sums appropriated, as I 
have mentioned, by Congress, were during that period employed in that 
manner for schools or asylums ? 

Answer. I do not. All the appropriations for the Freedmen's Bureau 
stand on the books of the Treasury chargeable in one item of appro- 
X>riation for the support of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lauds. Everything is charged to that, and every voucher 
that was ever paid is credited to that, without regard for what purpose 
it was paid. That one item is all there is on the books of the Treasury. 
That was fixed by Mr. McCulloch himself, when I visited him, when 
the first appropriation was made, in company with the warrant-clerk 
of the Treasury, Mr. Saville, who is now chief clerk of the Treasury. 
We visited Mr. McCulloch for the purpose of having him designate, as 
he was authorized or obliged by law to do, some heading for this appro- 
priation, and he designated that. Mr. McCulloch was then Secretary of 
the Treasury. 

Question. On January 1, 1871, how much money was available for 
payments of expenses of the Bureau under appropriations made by 
Congress for that purpose ? 

Answer. I am not able to state from memory. 

Question. Have you any papers or documents or records to which 
you can refer so that you can state distinctly as to that matter ? 

Answer. I could refer to my cash-book and tell how much money 
there 1 had on hand at that time. 

Question. Was application made for, and did Congress appropriate, 
money in that year to supply deficiencies. If so, when did you re- 
ceive that money from the Treasury 1 

Answer. I think there was a deficiency approj^riation. There was a 
deficiency made for the year ending June 30, 1871, of $127,000. 1 
could not tell Avhen I received that without refering to my deposit- 
book. 

By the Court : 
Question. You say a deficiency was made; do you mean a deficiency 
appropriation I 

Answer. A deficiency appropriation was made. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Please refer to those records and be prepared at the next meeting of 
the court to testify. 

On motion, the court then at 3.20 p. m. adjourned until to-morrow 
morning,' at 11 o'clock a. m. 



229 



TWENTY-SECOXD DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 181C F Street, 

Washington, I). C, April 8, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
Tbe court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. 0. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. X. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Garduer, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate j 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, the accused, and George W. Dyer, esq., of 
counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

George W. Balloch resumed the stand, and his examination was 
continued by the judge-advocate. 

Examination. 

Question. As yon have had anopportnnity of referring to your records, 
I will repeat the question of yesterday : Do you know anything with 
reference to the employment, as alleged, of $36,314.77, money appropri- 
ated for the "collection and payment of bounty, prize-money, and 
other legitimate claims of colored soldiers and sailors," for the use of 
schools and asylums, during the year 1871 ? 

Answer. I answer the question generally; I don't know anything 
about it. 

Question. Would not your retained vouchers or records afford you 
any information u])on this subject'? 

Answer. If any particular vouchers were pointed out I might be able 
to find out something about it. 

Question. Do you know whether or not, while yon were acting as 
chief disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, vouchers with ac- 
counts covering a i)articular mouth were filed by you in the Treasury, 
when payments may have been made in a prior month 1 If so, please 
state what knowledge you have on the subject. 

Answer. Probably between the 1st of January, 1871, and the 24th of 
March, 1871, I may have made some payments, the vouchers for which 
were not filed until March. 

Question. Do you know whether any sum or sums, appropriated, as I 
have mentioned, by Congress, " for the collection and payment of bounty, 
prize-money, and other legitimate claims of colored soldiers and sailors," 
were, during that period, employed in the manner you have stated, for 
schools or asylums? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. These payments made between January 1 and March 24, 
1871, where vouchers were not filed until a subsequent month — were 
such payments made by the authority or direction of anybody f 



230 

Answer. Made tbem on my own responsibility ; borrowed the money 
to do it with ; anticipated the appropriation. 

Question. Please state in detail how you effected this transaction, 
and what knowledge, if any, the Commissioner had of it. 

Answer. On the 1st day of January, 1871, I had on hand $1,391.98, 
balance of appropriation. The Commissioner had already made his 
application to Congress for a deficiency appropriation, which the chair- 
man of the Appropriation Committee assured him he should have at 
once. 

Question. Are you now speaking from knowledge ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; from knowledge. I went to the Commissioner and 
asked him what I should do in the meantime to continue the work. The 
work of the Bureau had not let up at all. The reason of our being short was 
that an hundred thousand dollars was stricken out of the appropriation 
after it had been reported by the Appropriation Committee to the House 
of Eepresentatives. In Committee of the Whole the Committee — Ap- 
propriation Committee — recommended $187,500, if I recollect aright ; but 
when itcame into Committeeof the Whole, Fernando Wood, of New York, 
and McNeely, of Illinois, and two or three more who had been engaged 
in the congressional investigation, opposed it so bitterly that $100,000 
was left out, leaving us only $87,500 ; but yet there was no diminution 
of work; the same work was expected of us as before. Now to continue 
the direct statement. 

I went to General Howard, and asked him what I should do to con- 
tinue the work. He said " It won't be but a few weeks any way before 
we shall get the deficiency appropriation I have asked for, and I will 
go over to Jay Cooke's and see if I cannot borrow the money, as other 
heads of Departments do." I told him I thought I could manage it with- 
out, and he said " Very well." That is all he ever said, I believe, about it. 

Question. Go right on, and state how you got the money and all about 
it, following out my question. 

Answer. I used temporarily other funds standing to my credit in the 
Treasury forthis purpose ; did iton my own responsibility. When we got 
a deficiency appropriation of $127,000, on the 24th of March, I then 
charged oft" the vouchers. I did not pay any more than I could possibly 
help. Some of the poor clerks had to be paid. It is not an uncommon 
thing for heads of Bureaus to anticipate their appropriations. I have a 
very notable example right in my mind, where the Adjutant-General of 
the Army did the same thing. 

The Judge-Advocate objected to witness continuing, as not answer 
ing his question. 

The Court directed the witness to proceed, as it desired to hear the 
case. 

The Judge- Advocate then said : I would infinitely prefer that the 
court should ask such questions, if they desire to have the evidence, 
rather than have it obtruded into the examination that I am trying to 
conduct. 

The President of the Court said : Proceed, General Balloch, and 
answer the question, confining yourself to what you know of your own 
personal knowledge. 

Answer. 1 think it was the same — at the same time or the succeed- 
ing year the Adjutant-General had clerks employed on certain duty 
which he could not dispense with, and his appropriation ran out. He 
had put in for a deficiency appropriation in the mean time. . 



231 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Are you speaking from your own knowledge ? 

Answer. I am speaking of what I know officially, as you will see very 
soon when I come to it. 

Question. If you do not know it, of your own knowledge, I shall object 
to your proceeding. 

Answer. I know it as a member of the finance committee of the Freed- 
men's Savings and Trust Company. He had roils made up every month of 
those clerks, certified to them himself, as to their being correct. A 
committee of the clerks cagie down to the Freedmen's Savings and Trust 
Company, and got those rolls paid over our counter; each clerk allow- 
ing himself pay ; each clerk paying a discount. We paid those rolls 
two or three months. When General Townsend got his appropriation, 
those rolls were taken up, and balanced by a check of the disbursing 
clerk of the War Department. 

Question. What rate of interest did you charge these clerks ! 

Answer. I do not know what was charged them. The actuary, Colonel 
Eaton, who made the arrangement, is now dead. 

Question. Wasitan individual arrangementon thepart of each of those 
clerks with the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company that they should 
be loaned so much money until they could get their pay from the Govern- 
ment or not ? 

Answer. I think General Townsend came down in i^erson to see Colonel 
Eaton about it, and then a committee of the clerks came down. This com- 
mittee of clerks — I was present when they came — stated that they had 
received similar favors from the First iSIational Bank, and 1 think from 
the Metropolitan Bank previous to coming to us. 

Question repeated, (and the witness was requested to continue his 
answer as to the individual arrangement.) 

Answer. As I said before, the arrangement in general was made with 
a committee of clerks, but the rolls were lodged at the Freedmen's 
Savings and Trust Company, all signed, and each individual clerk came 
there and got his money. 

Question. Do you recollect whether the Adjutant-General made him- 
self personally responsible or not for that loan ? 

Answer. I could not state. I am quite sure that when Colonel Eaton 
laid the matter before the board of trustees he said General Townsend 
guaranteed it. 

Question. How do you connect this mode of procedure in the Adjutant- 
General's Department, where a private institution loaned money to clerks 
until a deficiency bill was passed, with the incident you have mentioned 
in the Freedmen's Bureau, where you employed public funds that were 
to your credit as an offi(;er of that Bureau, in order to make payments 
pending the passage of a deficiency bill on the subject of those pay- 
ments ? 

Answer. In both cases we were anticipating the passage of a defi- 
ciency bill, believing in the faith of the Government. 

Question. What knowledge had General Howard of your using other 
moneys standing to your credit in the Treasury to pay these claims 
which were awaiting the deficiency bill ? 

Answer. I have just stated that he did not know anything about it at 
all; that I took the entire responsibility myself, and I should (in the 
same thing again under the circumstances. 

Question. When did he first obtain any knowledge of this tr.iusac- 
tion on your part, if ever ? 

Answer. He never knew anything about it. 



232 

Question. On March 24, 1871, did you submit any vouchers to liiin for 
payments made between January 1 and March 24 for his approval I 

Answer. Those payments which I. made at? interim were all considered 
as memorandum payments, and were all put on the March abstract, lie 
approved them all on the March abstract as usual. 

Question. I refer more particularly to the vouchers that accompanied 
that abstract. Did those abstracts show the date payments were made ? 

Answer. 1 think they were all dated as paid in March. 

Question. Had the money been taken out of the Treasury before 
March 24, 1871, to make these payments, or not? 

Answer. The money had actually been taken out of the Treasury. 

Question. Have you any means of refreshing your memory whether 
the vouchers you submitted (I presume with the abstracts) on March 
24, 1871, to General Howard, contained statement as to when those 
vouchers had been paid, the number of check, &c., the date of issuance ? 

Answer. I do not remember. 

Question. Do you know whether the Commissioner examined those 
vouchers when he signed the abstract of payments? 

Answer. I do not think he examined them in detail. 

Question. Did he make any examination to satisfy himself whether 
the payments had been actually made or not before approval; if so, 
what sort of an examination did he make ? 

Answer. I don't think he ever made any examination of any of my 
vouchers as to whether they had been actually paid or not. I carried 
the voucher to him receipted ; that was j>rima-/rtcie evidence of payment. 
He trusted to my good faith and honesty in the matter. 

Question. Do you desire to be understood that that was his invariable 
rule, to approve your abstracts when you took them to him with the 
vouchers, without any personal examination as to whether those vouch- 
ers had been paid or not ? 

Answer. It was his custom to select — look over the abstract and ask 
for such a voucher. I would show it to him ; he would look it over and 
call for another one, and another one, and pick them out here and there, 
asking for such explanations as he deemed proper, if he wanted any. 
He never examined minutely every voucher. I sometimes had twenty- 
six or twenty-seven hundred in a month on one account. 

Question. In your answer, referring to the time between January 1 
and March 24, 1871, you say there was certain Bureau work to be 
performed. What Bureau work do you refer to in that answer, aside 
from the payment of bounties to colored soldiers and sailors under the 
act of March 9, 1867 ? 

Answer. The educational work of the Bureau had not been discon- 
tinued. 

Question. Anything else? 

Answer. No. 

Question. What do you mean by saying the same work was expected 
of you as before ? 

Answer. The amount of work was the same to do as the year before, 
when we had ample appropriation to do it. We were not able to dimin- 
ish the iorce any to keep up the work ; the same work was required and 
the appropriation cut down over one-half. 

Question. Did you ever have any conversation with the Commissioner 
as to the advisability of cutting down the amount of work you had to 
l)ertbrm, to proportion it to the amount of money Congress was willing to 
allow you'? 

Answer. It could not be done. Congress put certain work by certain 



233 

laws upou us to do tbat work. We bad to do it, and they did uot see fit 
to give us the money to do it with on regular appropriations, and we put 
in for a deficiency appropriation, and had to wait a few weeks to get it, 
and kept the work right up. 

Question. Between January 1, 1871, and March 24, 1871, did the Com- 
missioner ever ask you how you had obtained money for the purpose of 
carrying on this work to wliich you refer 'i 

Answer. I don't think be ever did. 

Question. Have you an^^ recollection bow much money was thus di- 
verted during that period to make these payments ? 

Answer. About $35,000, 1 think ; thereabouts. I wish to state, fur- 
ther, that I made arrangements with Colonel Eaton and with the Freed- 
meu's Savings and Trust Company, that in case of any trouble they 
would advance me the money and take these vouchers and wait for an 
appropriation ; so I guarded myself when taking the responsibility. 

Question. What do you mean by saying in case of any trouble "? 

Answer. In case we did not get the deficiency appropriation. What 
would General General Townsend have done if he had not got his de- 
ficiency appropriation ? I would like to say, also, that at the time I 
spoke to General Howard about this, and he said he would go to Jay 
Cooke & Co. and borrow the money, he told me that Dr. Nichols, the 
superintendent of the Insane Asylum, was in the habit of doing the 
same thing ; when his appropriations woukl hardly hold out, he went to 
one of the banks here and temporarily borrowed the money ; and 
General Howard said : I suppose I can do the same thing. The General 
was one of the visitors at the Insane Asylum, and knew it officially. I 
recollect his making that remark to me at the time. 

Question. Do you know whether or not you turned over to General 
Howard, when you were relieved, October 11, 1871, all public moneys of 
every description for which you were accountable, or which bad been 
returned to you when payments to particular claimants had not been 
made, but vouchers filed thereof! 

Answer. I think I turned over to him everything in my hands. 

Question. Are you willing to swear positively on the subject '? 

Answer. I am not ; that is my impression. 

Question. Please state why not. 

Answer. Well, at this late day I could not remember positively. 

Question. Leaving out the retained fees of attorneys, which you held 
until a subsequent time, can you now, with that exception, state posi- 
tively whether or not you turned over all public moneys for which you 
were accountable or that had been returned to you, where colored claim- 
ants, for example, could not be found, October 11, 1871, or thereabouts ! 

Answer. I think I did, so far as I know. 

Question. By reference to your retained papers, or retained books, 
would you be able to state with any degree of jjositiveness ! 

Answer. I might. 

Question. What documents would afford you that information 1 

Answer. I do not know what particular documents I should have to 
go over ; all my books, and over the letter-books, possibly. 

Question. Did General Howard, when he relieved you in October, 
1871, call on you to turn over all public moneys for which you were ac- 
countable ? 

Answer. I think he did ; and I did turn over all I supposed I was re- 
sponsible for. 



234 

By the President of the Court : 

General, you can claim the protection of the court at any time 
when you think you are being pressed too closely as to your personal 
matters. The court has no desire that you shall say anything that may 
implicate you in any manner. You are not obligetl to criminate your- 
self. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Please state how long a time has elapsed between your last 
examination before this court and your examination of yesterday. 

Answer. A week. 

Question. When were you first subpoenaed before this court, and on 
what day did you first report ? 

Answer. I reported on the 12th day of March. I got a subpoena three 
or four days before. The subptena directed me to report on the 12th 
of March, and 1 did. I think I got it the Friday before. 

Question. [Handing witness the subpoena.] Will that refresh your 
memory in anywise? 

Answer. The 10th of March ; I made a mistake. 

Question. And when did you receive that subpoena ? 

Answer. I received it at half past one, on the 7th of March. 

Question. After having reported here on the first day, do you recollect 
how many days elapsed before yonr examination was commenced ? 

Answer. I think it was just a week and one day. 

Question. During that week at what time did you report to the judge- 
advocate of the court ? 

Answer. Eleven o'clock. 

Question. How soon thereafter, during that week, were you dis- 
charged from further attendance for the day ? 

Answer. I was discharged every day when I reported ; told to come 
the next day. 

Question. Were you required to be present here on Saturdays, within 
your recollection ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. When did you receive from the Third Auditor a communi- 
cation with reference to that $16,652.25 voucher? 

Answer. I received it the 25th of February, I think. 

Question. Where is the Howard University located f 

Answer. Just beyond the boundary of the city of Washington, be- 
tween Fourth-and-a-half and Sixth streets, extended, on the hill over- 
looking the city. 

Question. What species of government has it ! 

Answer. It has a board of trustees, president, secretary and treasurer, 
and the usual faculties, medical, law, collegiate, and theological depart- 
ments. 

Question. Can you state whether it is a public or a private institu- 
tion f 

Answer. I think it is a private institution, but it was chartered by 
the Congress of the United States. 

Question. Has General Howard been in anywise officially connected 
with it since its foundation, in 1865 ? If so, please state in what capacity, 
and for how long. 

Answer. He was a charter member of the board of incorporators ; has 
been a trustee from that time to this ; a part of the time he has been 
its president. 



235 

Question. For how long a period and from what time has he acted as 
president of this university "? 

Answer. From the 6th of Aprils 1869, until a few months ago. 

Question. Please fix with definiteness the time at which General 
Howard discontinued acting as president. 

Answer. I judge it is about two months ago, possibly three. 

Question. During that period has he continued to act as trustee from 
the time you first mentioned ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; he has always been one of the trustees ; is now. 

Question. When repairs were necessary to the Howard University and 
debts were to be created which were to be paid either from University 
funds or by the Freedmen's Bureau, as the case might be, what admin- 
istrative scrutiny, if any, did such matters undergo from the board of 
trustees, or the faculty, or the president "^ 

A Member of the court. I object to the question on the ground 
that it is examining into the management of the Howard University, 
which is not the question under consideration. I do not think the 
question is a proper one. I also object on the ground that the witness 
cannot well know as to the management of that institution. 

The Judge-Advocate. In reply to the gentleman, I would simply 
state that as the disbursing officer of the Bureau he would be called 
upon to make payments, and it would appear from his testimony that 
he has made payments for the University, and that he would be likely 
to know something on the subject. The further purport of the ques- 
tion with reference to the administration of the University, I respect- 
fully decline to give at present, believing that my declination is in the 
interest of the public service. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-oj)ened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced, as the decision of the court, that the objection is not 
sustained.] 

Question. (Repeated.) 

Answer. When repairs were to be made the agent in charge of the 
buildings would make his application to the executive committee of the 
University trustees for such repairs. They would apply — they would 
lay the matter before the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and 
if such repairs could be properly made from the educational fund of the 
Bureau, they would be made from that fund ; if not, from the funds of 
the University. 

Question. What administrative scrutiny did such matters undergo 
from the board of trustees, or the president, or the faculty "? 

Answer. I have answered that; tliat is the first part of the last ques- 
tion that I answered. I answered the last part first. 

Question. You said it went to an executive committee ; who com- 
posed the executive committee ? 

Answer. They were gentlemen connected with the board of trustees, 
of whom the president ex officio was chairman. 

Question. Do you know whether General Howard had ceased to be 
president of Howard University before or after you filed the vouchers 
for the particular 119,446.50, interest and premium money in the 
Treasury ? 

Answer. He was the president of the University when that expense 
was incurred, and when the vouchers were first filed, and he is the 
president of the University now, only he is not acting. He has re- 
signed his position, but it has not been accepted. 

Question. Do you recollect whether he had ceased acting before or 



236 

after tbe filing in the Treasury of tlie voucbers for this sum, two months 
or so ago? 

Answer. I think he had ceased acting then, but those vouchers that 
I filed then, as I stated in my testimony, were my retained copies that 
I filed to replace those that I supposed he had filed at the time I was 
mustered out. 

Question. How did you discover two days before the notification from 
the Third Auditor that you bad claimed credit at the Treasury a second 
time for the expenditure of $10,652.25 on a duplicate voucher approved 
by General Howard ? 

Answer. 1 was looking over my cash-book to hunt up some items 
■which the general wanted, and I came across, and my eye caught that 
sum. As I had had the vouchers in my hands only two or three days 
before, I saw it at once. 

Question. Do you know whether or not any information was received 
by you on this subject from any Treasury official or clerk prior to the 
Third Auditor's letter to youf 

Answer. 1 happened in the Third Auditor's office, and I think he told 
me himself. 

Question. How long was this before the letter'? 

Answer. Well, the letter was being written. 

Question. How long after this did you receive the letter? 

Answer. The next day. 1 told him that 1 had already discovered it. 

Question. Do you know whether or not any information was received 
by you on this subject from any other Treasury official or clerk prior to 
the Third Auditor's conversation with you ! 

Auswer. I do not think there was. 1 do not remember any. 

Question. When did you have any conversation, if at all, with Gen- 
eral Howard on this subject *? 

Answer. As soon as I found it out I told him about it. I think I 
notified him in writing. 

Question. On what date did you tell him about it ! 

Answer. 1 ascertained the fact in the evening from my cash-book, 
and I told him the next day, as near as I can remember, in the morn- 
ing, as soon as I could see him. 

Question. Was this before or after the receipt of the letter from the 
Third Auditor? 

Answer. The same day that the letter was written from the Third 
Auditor. 

Question. Do you recollect the nature of the conversation you had 
at that time, and whether it was with reference to any action on his 
part ? 

Auswer. Well, I stated to him the fact, and told him that I was very 
much astonished, and could not explain it. 

Question. This was some time in February. Can you fix the date of 
that conversation? 

Answer. It must have been the 23d February, or thereabouts. 

Question. Before your reply to the Third Auditor ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you any recollection what had called forth the exam- 
ination by you of your cash-book at the time you mention, when you 
discovered this duplicate- voucher matter? 

Answer. I do not remember what particular thing I was looking for; 
it was something he wanted — some information. 

Question. Do you recollect whether he gave you any information as 
to what had called forth that information f 



237 

Answer. I do not. He bad been calling on me all winter, almost 
every day, for some items of information relative to tbis investigation, 
or tbis 

Question. Please look at tbe jacket case of Julias Jones, late private 
of Company H, Sixty-first United States Colored Troops, certificate No. 
338070, for $235.53. Can you state wbetber tbat is a case wbicb came 
under your ofiicial notice as disbursing ofiflcer "? 

Answer. I presume it did. 

Question. Wbat does it indicate witb reference to payment and 
voucbers filed ? 

Answer. No indication from my oflBce wben it was paid. Tbis is not 
my jacket — tbis outside one. It seems to be bere marked paid June 
13, 1808. 

Question. Tbere appears to be an inside jacket ; can you state wbetber 
or not tbat is your jacket ? 

Answer. Yes ; tbat is one of mine. 

Question. Please refer to tbe jacket cases (banding witness cases) of 
Ricbard Long, late private Company K, Sixty-lirst United States Colored 
Troops, certificate No. 311101, for $230.98 ; tbe jacket case of Josepb 
Hewey, late private Company F, Fifty-fiftb Eegimeut United States Col- 
ored Troops, certificate No. 373170, for $305.41 ; of Jobn Frazer, late 
private Company D, Sixty -first Regiment United States Colored Troops, 
certificate No. 301370, for $242.25 ; jacket case of Jackson Doyle, late 
lirivate Company I, Fifty-fiftb United States Colored Troops, certificate 
No. 380450, for $271.50 ; jacket case of William Anstin, Company T, 
Sixty-tbird Regiment United States Colored Troops, certificate No. 
,366415, amounting to $14.40; to jacket case of George Taylor, late mu- 
sician Company F, One buudred and tentb Regiment United States 
Colored Troops, certificate No. 358642, for $200 ; and state wbetber or 
not tbose are cases tbat came under your official notice as disbursing 
officer. 

Answer. I judge tbey are, by tbe appearance of tbe jackets. 

Question. Wbat did tbey indicate witb reference to payment and 
voucbers filed ? 

Answer. Tbey indicate tbat tbe money was sent to pay tbe claimants 
and tbe voucbers filed. 

Question. In tbese several jacket cases referred to? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Wben were tbey paid and voucbers filed ? 

Answer. I cannot tell tbe particular date from tbe stamp of tbe 
jacket. It was before we began to mark tbe date of payment on tbe 
voucber. 

Question. How are tbey all marked, tbougb, witb reference to pay- 
ment ? 

Answer. Tbey are marked tbat tbe money bad been sent to pay tbem. 

Question. Please state wbose signature tbat is ; [banding witness let- 
ter-press book.] 

Answer. Tbat is mine ; I know all about tbat letter. 

Question. Tbat is your letter ? 

Answer. Tbat is my letter. 

[Tbe judge-advocate offered tbe letter in evidence, and it was read to 
tbe court. A copy is attacbed to tbe record and marked Exbibit Y^, 
tbere being no objection on tbe part of tbe accused.] 

Question. Tbe amounts bere stated in tbis letter-press copy of yours 
varies somewbat from tbe amounts tbat I bave given on tbe jackets j 



238 

but at the foot of each jacket is an amount corresponding to the 
amounts named in your letter ? 

Answer. The amounts you gave included the attorneys' fees. 

Question. And these amounts as given here were the amounts due to 
claimants ? 

Answer. It shows the money sent and the money received back. 

Question. Are those amounts indicated on the jackets! 

Answer. They appear to be. 

Cross-exa7nination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. If there is any exijlanation about this last transaction give 
it, if you please. 

Answer. The explanation is that the money in each of these cases 
Wits subsequently applied for by Colonel Palmer or his successor, and 
was sent by me again to them. 

Question. General, I would like to know what business you were en- 
gaged in before the war, generally ? 

Answer. After graduating from the Military Academy at Norwich, 
Vt., in 1847, I commenced active life as civil engineer, building rail- 
roads. I continued in that three years. I then took charge of an 
important station on the Boston and Maine Railroad, at Great Falls, N. 
H., as the station- agent. I was in their employ for about five years. I 
then accepted the situation as master of transportation and assistant 
superintendent of the Great Falls and Conway Kailroa<l, which position 
1 held about two years and a half. I then was in trade about a couple 
of years. That brought me down to the summer of 1861, when the war 
broke out. 

Question. Yes ? 

Answer. I then, in September and October, 18G1, went to work and 
recruited a company for the Fifth Regiment New Hampshire Volun- 
teers. I was offered its captaincy but did not take it, but took the first 
lieutenancy of Company D of the Fifth New Hampshire Volunteers, 
mustered into the service by Colonel Seth Eastman, on the 23d October, 

1861. On the 28th October. 1861, my regiment joined General Howard's 
brigade at Bladensburg. On or about the 11th day of November, 1861, 
I was detailed by General Howard as assistant commissary of subsist- 
ence. I was on duty as such through the sjning campaign of the Army 
of the Potomac; and at Harrison's Landing, on the 2Jd day of July, 

1862, I received my appointment as captain and commissary of subsist- 
ence of volunteers. About the 11th of April, 1863, I Was appointed chief 
commissary of the Eleventh Army Corps, then under command of General 
Howard, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. In that capacity I went 
through the Chaucellorsville and Gettysburg campaign or campaigns. 
When the two divisions of the Eleventh Corps, in September, 1863, 
^fter the battle of Chickamauga, were sent to join General Rosecrans's 
army at Chattanooga, I went with him in my capacity of chief com- 
missary of his corps. On the formation of the new Twentieth Corps, 
as I stated the other day, I think it was in May, 1864, I was assigned 
by General George H. Thomas to duty as chiet commissary of that 
corps. In that capacity I went through the Atlanta campaign under 
General Sherman. When the march to the sea, as it is called, was 
planned, the army of Georgia was formed; General Slocuin put in 
command of it. I was assigned to duty as acting chief commissary of 
that army, still keeping my position as chief commissary of the Twen- 
tieth Army Corps. 



239 

By the Court : 

Question. Which formed a part of it ! 

Answer. Which formed a part of it. In that capacity I made the 
campaign from Atlanta to Savannah. In that capacity I also made the 
campaign from Savannah to Goldsborough. At Goldsborough I was re- 
lieved as acting chief commissary of the army of Georgia, bat continued 
as chief commissary of the Twentieth Army Corps under General Mower, 
and as such made the march to Washington. On my arrival at Wash- 
ington 1 was appointed by Secretary Stanton an inspector in the Sub- . 
sistence Department with the rank and pay of lieutenant-colonel of cav- 
alry, and ordered to duty in the Freedmen's Bureau under General 
Howard. My history from that time to this is pretty well known. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. What were your duties as disbursing officer before March 
29, 1SG7 ? 

Answer. I disbursed appropriations Congress made for the support 
of that Bureau, and also the loose fund, known as the Refugee and 
Freedmen's fund, and I think some of the appropriations for the desti- 
titute of Washington were made previous to that, that I disbursed. I 
organized the disbursing branch of the Freedmen's Bureau, and had 
charge of all the disbursements. 

Question. What do you mean by calling a certain fund the loose 
fund ? 

Answer. It did not come from the appropriation of Congress itself; 
the fund referred to in the act of June 15, 18G6, or what is called the 
debris of the war, as I testified the other day. I testified about it in 
full the other day. 

Question. What was the extent and magnitude of your duty as dis- 
bursing officer before March 29, 18G7 °? 

Answer. The duties were very arduous and required a great, constant 
care ; great responsibility. Our first appropriation, if I remember aright, 
was over six millions, and as this was a new Bureau with no long-estab- 
lished rules to guide it; as it was an anomaly in itself, it required great 
care to make the disbursements properly. 

Question. After the passage of that resolution of March 29, 1867, 
"what were your duties as disbursing officer 1 

Answer. In addition to my previous duties I was charged with the 
payment of those bounties and prize-money and other items mentioned 
in that act. 

Question. In round numbers, before March 29, 18G7, how much money 
had you disbursed as the disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. I could not tell you witliout referring to the reports. 

Question. In round numbers ; it is not a matter of exactness. 

Answer. Probably between four and five millions. 

By the Court : 

Question. You spoke of an appropriation of six millions for the first. 

Answer. That was the first appropriation ; then afterward we had 
another of three millions, an appropriation in 18GG of six millions, and 
in 1867 we got three millions more. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Question. At the time of your quitting the Bureau, how much had 
you disbursed as an officer of the Bureau from every source ? 
Answer. From all sources, $21,949,780. 
Question. At the time of the passage of this joint resolution of March 



240 

20, 1867, were you familiar with the reasons which led to the passage of 
that law f 

Answer. I did not know mnch about it until after it was passed. 

Question. After it had passed did you seek to make yourself ac- 
qaiuted with the meaning of that law ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. How, in what particulars ? 

Answer. I consulted with Mr. Eliot, the chairman of the Freedmen's 
Committee of the House of Eepresentatives, upon one point, and the 
others I consulted with the — principally with the Second Comptroller. 

Question. Upon what point did you consult with Mr. Eliot ? 

Answer. In relation to that — the meaning of that phrase, the Com- 
missioner shall be held accountable for the safe disbursement of the 
money. 

By the Court : 
Question. For the safe custody and disbursement ? 
Answer. I did not give the wording exactly. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Did he give you his idea of the meaning of it '? 

Answer. He said General Howard was responsible just in the same 
way that the Commissary-General or the Quartermaster-General were 
responsible for appropriations for their Departments. 

Question. Upon what point did you consult the Second Comptroller? 

Answer. About the proper way to render the accounts, and matters 
of detail growing out of the same. 

Question. Was this before you entered upon the direct duties under 
that law of paying bounties ? 

Answer. It was at the time I was getting up the vouchers, and get- 
ting ready to begin — getting up the blank vouchers. 

Question. At that time was there already a claim division in the 
Freedmen's Bureau? 

Answer. There had been a claim division for some time. I think it 
was organized as soon as the Bureau was organized, or soon after, 

Question. What had been the business of that claims division ? 

Answer. It took the place of an attorney, and took up and prosecuted 
claims for bounty and pensions, and commutation of rations, and every- 
thing of that nature due colored soldiers or their heirsk 

Q. Did it do it without charge"? 

A. Without charge. 

Q. Did it seek these claimants through the country and forward and 
prosecute their claims ? 

Answer. I think the claims were forwarded to this division by the 
various agents of the Bureau scattered throughout the country. When 
claimants applied to them, they would get up the information and evi- 
dence and forward it to the claim division. 

Question. Was it a part of the duty of these agents, scattered all 
through the South, to assist claimants in that way ? 

Answer. It was. 

Question. And this division in the office was established for the pur- 
pose of forwarding that work ? 

Answer. The land department was also under charge of the same 
officer. 

By the Court : 
Question. Abandoned lands ? 
Answer. Abandoned lands department : Yes sir. 



241 

By the Accused, (throngli Lis couusels :) 

Question. You thea, in your duty of paying bounties, took to yourself, 
or to your help, the machinery' already existing in the office, in this 
division of claims"? 

Answer. Yes sir. 

Question. Was that division always distinct from yours "? 

Answer. It was. 

Question. Wliat did that division do with regard to these claims before 
you paid them "? 

Answer. They prosecuted the claim to a settlement, obtained a certifi- 
cate, and when the certificate was obtained they sent it to me for pay- 
ment. This division also adjnsted all the fees of attorneys. When 
the certificates were sent from the Second Auditor's OiUce, they also 
went to that division first, where the fees and advances were all ad- 
justed. 

Question. Then, when the matter came into your hands, these amounts 
■were all stated ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Which you had to pay the claimant and had to retain for 
fees ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Papers were prepared for you ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did that division then constitute a check upon yours to 
some extent! 

Answer. It did by way of reference. 

Question. In entering upon the duties of paying these bounties, what 
difficulties did you find attending that matter ? 

Answer. Tlie difficulties seemed almost insurmountable at first sight. 
There was a difficulty of identification ; there was a recurrence of the 
same name in the same regiment, often times in the same company. 
The difficulty of determining who were the legitimate heirs in case the 
claimant was dead. Sometimes four or five widows would put in an 
appearance, and it was very difficult to decide whicli of the number 
were entitled to the bounty. There was the difficulty of obtaining 
reliable agents. There was a sort of social ostracism, if I nuiy use 
the word, existing in the South towaixl our agents. They were very 
much despised, and almost everybody seemed inclined to hiuder rather 
than to help this work along. 

Question. As to this matter of identification, were not many of these 
colored soldiers named for the first time when they enlisted by the 
name which they afterward bore upon the rolls '? 

Answer. I understood it was the custom of recrnitiug officers, recruit- 
ing negro troops, in the neighborhood of Memphis and Vicksburgh in 
l)articular, where it was supposed that the master might have some 
claim upon their pay; those who enlisted, I believe, before the emanci- 
pation proclamation — it was the custom of the recruiting officers to give 
the recruit a name, by which he would be borne upon the roll. After 
the war was over they generally, in some cases, dropped this military 
name, and took their old name again. 

Question. Were there any difficulties attending these payments, by 
reason of the provision that it should be paid in currency to the person 
to whom it properly belonged? 

Answer. That was a very great difficulty. 

Question. In what way ! 

IGhc 



242 

Answer. It required the sending- of tlie money or tlie check to a third 
l)arty. Another great difficulty of identiiication was that they looked 
so much alike. Mr. French, in conversing with nie once about it — the 
Second Auditor — said it Avould be about as difficult to identify these 
parties as it would be to tell which crow was the blackest in a flock; 
their hair was usually all about the same color, and their eyes and com- 
plexion. It was a rare thing to find a red-headed one. 

Question. Did it add to the difficulty that these soldiers commonly 
could not write ? 

Answer. It did very much. 

Question.* Did you understand that the provision in this law, that 
payment should be made in currency, was uiude for the benefit of the 
colored soldier ? 

Answer. It was. It was to prevent him trading his check or draft. 

Question. Did you understand that it was made wholly for his 
benefit! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you understand that he had no right to waive that and 
take payment in any other way ? 

Answer. I do not. [ do not understand that this law of 1867 abrogated 
any right, any inherent right, that the claimant may have had before, 
under previous law. 

Question. Or any natural right ? 

Answer. No, sir ; or any natural right. 

Question. In the special instances that have been read from your let- 
ter-books of money having been sent to the claimant himself by check, 
can you state positively whether or not, in all instances, it was so done 
at the request of the claimant ? 

Answer. I have no hesitation in saying that.it was never done unless 
the claimant so requested it. The law is very clear. It says the Com- 
missioner, after paying the attorney's fee, shall hold the balance subject 
to the order of the claimant, and it was a question at one time whether 
we had any right to send jnoney even to our agents, until the claimant 
called for it, either personally or through the agent. 

Question. Then, if I understand you, in certain instances where the 
parties themselves expressly desired it, you sent the money to them ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. U[»on evidence satisfactory to you of their identification 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Were these instances usually those of persons who could 
write themselves ? 

Answer. I don't remember ; generally, in some instances, the parties 
could write themselves. 

Question. Where the parties could not write ? 

Answer. The letter was usually verified by a uotar^^ i)ublic, or some 
,such officer. 

Question. In these instances of money so sent, as it has been thought 
irregularly, has there been any loss ? 

Answer. Not a cent. 

Question. Either to the Government or to the person entitled to the 
money f 

Answer. Not a cent, to my knowledge, except in one case, and that 
was where I made a payment myself that I alluded to the other day, 
where I got the person in the Charlestown, Mass., penitentiary for three 
years for perpetrating the fraud on me. That loss fell on mej it did not 
fall on the Government. 



243 

Question. In the course of the direct examination you said, with refer- 
ence to some of these payments, that they might have been made upon 
certificates issued prior to the passage of this act; have you anything 
more to say in regard to that ? 

Answer. The first case that the judge-advocate called to my atten- 
tion the other day, the case of Maria Bhxir, of Edgefield, Ky., the 
certificate in that case was issued prior to the passage of the act of 
March 29, 18G7, and afterward made payable by the accounting ofticers 
of the Treasury through the Bureau to facilitate the payment. 

Question. Do you remember of any other instances, or haven't you 
looked at them particularly ? 

Answer. I have not looked up any other. 

Question. Before you entered upon the payment of these bounties 
under this act, iu addition to consulting with the Second Comptroller, 
you say you conferred with souie of the paymasters of the Army. 
What course did yon find had been universal with them with regard to 
the receipt of signed vouchers before they made payments upon them ? 

Answer. They always have the receipted voucher first ; I do not 
know an exception. 

Question. Did you consult with the paymasters who were paying at 
that time the bounties to the white soldiers about the mode iu which 
they conducted their business "? 

Answer. I did ; I conferred with Colonel Eaton, who was on that 
duty. 

Question. What system had they in use in that respect ? 

Answer. They had the same; receipt first, and then sent the 
money. 

Question. They always had the soldier's receipt before they sent the 
money "? 

Answer. Invariably, as far as I know. 

Question. Do you know if that practice is continued to this time? 

Answer. It was in vogue the last time I inquired of any paymaster 
about it. 

(Question. How long since was that 1 

Answer. I don't think I have made any inquiry since I was relieved. 

Question. Upou such information as you could get, then, you adopted 
a system of payments which was analogous to that alreadj^ in use in 
the Army? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. And among disbursing officers of the Army? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And followed that system to the end ? 

Answer. I did, with the exception of those few points to which 
vouchers and mouey were sent at the same time. 

Question. Those were the instances where you had regularly-author- 
ized agents that had given bonds? 

Answer. Had given bouds or detailed officers of the Army. 

Question. I would like to have you state what you know, if anything, 
not before testified about, with regard to the matter of St. Clair Mati- 
deville. 

Answer. I don't remember anything that I have not testified to. 

Question. Have you since testifying seen any of the papers relating 
to him, or relating to his case? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Do yon know anything with regard to the appointment of 
O. C. French ? 



244 

Answer. I tliink lie was appointed at the recom men elation of General 
Gillem. I am almost certain that General Ames had something to do 
with it. 

Question. Was General Gillem department commauder where he 
was f 

Answer. He was. He was the assistant commissioner also, and, if I 
remember rightly, for Mississippi. 

Question. Was General Ames at that time Senator from Mississippi, 
or was he a military officer in that part of the country? 

Answer. I think at that time he was a military officer. 

Question. Had French been an artillery officer? 

Answer. I don't know what his military services had been. 

Question. You said yesterday, in regard to him, that he performed 
some duties after he was discharged. What were those duties after he 
was discharged by the Commissioner? 

Answer. He continued acting as disbursing officer, without salary. 

Question. Was that after complaint had been made against him ? 

Answer. There was some complaint made against him in 1870, which 
Colonel Beman was sent up from New Orleans to investigate, but it did 
not amount to anything. 

Question. Was that before his defalcation was known I 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. He came to Washington at one time, as I understood you, 
after his defalcation. Did you see him at that time ? 

Answer. I did not. I do not think 1 did. I do not wish to swear 
positively that I did not. I don't think I did. 

Question. Is there any statement which you wish to make with regard 
to Major Euukle which you have not already testified about? 

Answer. ISTot as I know of. 

Question. In the payment of these bounties, and in the sending of 
checks to agents for the receipts furnished by them, or forwarded by 
them, what was the duty of the agent in regard to finding the claimant ? 

Answer. It was his duty to find the claimant, and pay him upon satis- 
factory identification. 

Question. Was he to go after him or write to him? What was he 
exi)ected to do ? 

Answer. In some cases the agent made journeys at stated times. For 
instance, in the State of Kentucky, General Runkle would make jour- 
neys to i)articular i)oints in the State where bounties were to be paid, 
and notified the claimants in advance to be there with their witnesses 
at specilied times. In the other case the claimants were expected to 
come to the office. If they lived some distance from the office, I pre- 
sume the agent notified them in some way that he had their money. 

On motion the court then, at ten minutes past 3 o'clock p. m., 
adjourned until to-morrow^ morning, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



245 



TWENTY-THIRD DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 181G F Street, 

Washington, D. G., April 9, 1874 — 11 ti. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoiug orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sberman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. 0. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A.: 

6. Col. J. J. Kevnolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate ; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, the accnsed, and Messrs. George W. Dyer, 
and Edgar Ketchnm, esqs., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

After the reading, the witness, George W. Balloch, resumed the 
stand, and said : 

Mr. President : I wish to correct my testimony slightly in relation to 
the rolls that I alleged were paid by the Freedmen's Savings and Trust 
Company for the Adjutant-General's Office. A committee of clerks, of 
whom James B. Carter was one, went to the Freedmen's Savings and 
Trust Company to make the arrangement, as I stated before, on account 
of their having no appropriation. The disconnt was agreed* upon be- 
tween this committee and Colonel Eaton, the actuary, and the uioney 
paid over in bulk to this committee, they leaving the signed rolls with 
the bank. General Myers, Quartermaster, U. S. A., finally took up 
those rolls with his check. I do not think General Townsend went to 
the bank at all about it. Mr. Carter is still on duty in the Department, 

By the Court : 
Question. Any further corrections, General Balloch ? 
Answer. No, sir. 

Cross-examination resumed. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Who certified to the correctness of these rolls that you have 
just referred to in your correctional testimony ? 

Answer. I am unable to state from my own knowledge. I did state 
yesterday that I thought General Townsend did, but I do not wish to 
state so positively. 

Question. Taking up again the consideration of the payment of boun- 
ties, did you find difficulties in the payment of these bounties by reason 
of difficulty in getting information from the War Department ? 

Answer. The only information I had was what was contained in the 
discharge of the soldiers which usually accompanied the case. No spe- 
cial information was furnished. I did not come so directly in communi- 
cation with the War Department in these matters as the agent in charge 
of the Claim Division did. I applied once for some special information 



246 

and Lad great difficulty in getting it; I usually got special information 
when I wanted it from the duplicate rolls in the Second Auditor's Oftice. 

By the Court : 
Question. Duplicate muster-rolls'? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Who did you mean had charge of the Claim Division f 

Answer. First the office was in charge of Maj. William Fowler, then 
in charge of General Albion P. Howe, and finally in charge of William 
P. Drew. 

Question. As a fact, was not the War Department at that time very 
busy in the furnishing of information for the Paymaster-General and 
the Second Auditor? 

Answer. I have no means of knowing. I presume they were. 

Question. In the payment of these bounties was there not a constant 
pressure upon the Bureau, from Congressmen and other officials, to 
have the payments hurried up ? 

Answer. In 18G7, 'OS, and '09 the pressure from that class of individ- 
uals was very urgent upon us. 

By the Court : 

Question. That class of individuals ? 

Answer. Politicians, generally. I do not wish to apply it to mem- 
bers of Congress ])articularly, but to the politicians generally through- 
out the South. One would suppose from seeing the letters that their 
temporal salvation, in some cases, depended upon these bounties being 
l)aid. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. I wish to ask you whether, in view of that pressure, as 
well as the necessities of the claimants, it was not your purpose to make 
these payments as rapidly as possible "? 

Answer. It was. I used every endeavor to make the payments just 
as rapidly as possible, in order to stop this constant clamor. The 
])ressure at times was so much that it seemed as if I could not stand up 
under it. Persons who were not in that service have no idea anything 
about it. 

Question. You were forced, then, by this pressure, to do the tvork 
very rapidly ? 

Answer. I was. 

Question. In the performance of this work was there the same super- 
vision upon the part of the Commissioner over it as over other divisions 
of his Bureau ? 

Answer. I think there was the same. He might have devoted him- 
self more particularly to the great work of education and matters 
growing out of the organization of the labor question. He left the 
details of this disbursing department entirely to me ; expected me to 
work out all the details of it. 

Question. How frequently was he in your particular office in connec- 
tion with your work ? 

Answer. Quite frequently. 

Question. Can yon make it more definite than that ? 

Answer. When he was in the city I do not think that there was a day 
that ho was not either in my office or sent for me to come to his to make 
i^ouie inquiry about some of these matters pertaining to the disburse- 



247 

ments ; sometimes sent for me lialf a dozeu times a day, wlien persons 
were in bis office trying to press claims tlirougli. He always sent for 
me to fight tbem off in case tbey were not rigbt. 

Question. Did be have inspections of your office! 

Answer. He did, very often. 

Question. ISTow, in regard to the payment of all these bounties, back 
pay, i&c, under the resolution of March 21), 1867, are you willing to 
swear that in making those payments you used your best judgment, 
care, and diligence ! 

Answer. I am most positive ; I used every faculty I possessed that 
could be brought to bear upon the subject. 

Question. In the payment of the one hundred and seventy-four claims, 
or so many of tbem as you have filed vouchers for, can you swear pos- 
itively that you sent sufficient money in every instance to meet the 
receipts which you filed ? 

Answer. I can ; if any were sent short it was a clerical error, which 
"was corrected. 

Question. Can you swear in regard to the payment of these one hun- 
dred and seventy-four cases, or so many of tbem as you paid, that you 
used tbe same care, diligence, and prudence tbat you did in the payment 
of other cases of bounty or back pay ? 

Answer. I used tbe same. 

Question. You liave testified that a year or so before you were re- 
lieved as disbursing officer the Commissioner had sub receipts sent 
directly to him,witboul your knowledge, to act as a check upon your 
payments. Do you know the fact that he corresponded directly with 
claimants when a complaint seemed to be well founded ? 

Answer. I do not know what bis custom was. 

Question. Or that he did it through the Claim Division and not 
through yours? 

Answer. Probably he did it through the Claim Division ; it would 
properly come in that division. 

Question. In regard to the so called defalcation of St. Clair Mande- 
ville, do you know whether there was any defalcation upon his part? 

Answer. 1 could not swear positively tbat there was. All the infor- 
mation I had on the subject was what was got by report — letters. 

Question. After his death did General Howard immediately send bis 
inspector to New Orleans to make an inspection with regard to the 
affairs of St. Clair Mandeville in connection with the JBureau ? 

Answer. I think he sent General Sewell, the inspector, there at once. 
I think he made two visits to New Orleans on that business ; once im- 
mediately after Mandeville's death and afterwards in relation to the 
suit that had been commenced against his sureties. 

Question. Were the sureties of St. Clair Mandeville promptly pro- 
ceeded against after the inspection of General Sewell I 

Answer. I think they were. It has been a long time, over six years 
and a half now, since the occurrence. 

Question. Will you look at this paper and state if you are familiar 
"with it ? [Paper handed witness.] 

Answer. I think it is an official copy of the bond of St. Clair Mande- 
ville. 

[The accused, through his counsel, offered the paper in evidence.] 

Tbe JudCtE-Advocate. 1 have no objection j I brought this bond 
here myself. 

[The bond was then read. A copy is attached to the record and 
marked Exhibit W^, there being no objection on the part cl the Judge- 
Advocate.] 



248 

Question. You were in error, then, when you stated in your direct tes- 
timony that the bond was for 'a much smaller sum than $10,000 "I 

Answer. I was; I gave the sum from memory. 

Question. I understood you to say that the bond of St. Clair Mau- 
deville was the first bond which was taken ? 

Answer. That is my impression still. 

Question. That runs to the Commissioner ; how did subsequent bonds 
run ? 

Answer. They are all on a printed form, and I think they run to the 
United States ; the form is here in court. 

Question. Has the prosecution of this suit against the sureties of 
St. Clair Mandeville been persisted in by the Commissioner from the 
time the suit was commenced"? 

Answer. I do not know that there has been any abatement. 

Question. Can you swear positively that money was sent by you to 
St. Clair Mandeville to make good all the receipted vouchers which 
were sent by him to you ? 

Answer. I can. 

Question. With regard to the defalcation of O. C. French [the ac- 
cused, through his counsel, called upon the judge-advocate to produce 
the bond of O. C. French, and it was jiroduced and handed to the wit- 
ness.] 

Question continued. Have you ever seen his bond, or do you know 
Lis signature ? 

Answer. That is his signature. 

[The accused, through his counsel, offered the bond in evidence, and it 
was read to the court. A copy is attached to the record and marked 
Exhibit X^, there beingno objection on the part of the judge-advocate.J 

Question. When the defalcation ot O. C. French became known, was 
there an inspection upon the part of General Howard of his affairs'? 

Answer. I had been relieved at that time, but I understood 

Question. I don't care, if you do not know. 

Answer. Do you want me to finish my answer. 

Question. Whom did you uiiderstand from? 

•Answer. Froni the Commissioner. 

Question. Well, I would like to hear your answer 1 

Answer. That Mnj. Joseph M. Brow^n was sent there, and that Mark 
Edwards, who was the agent at Memphis, w'as also sent down. 

(Question. Do you know if, after the inspection, prompt measures were 
taken for suit against the sureties of O. C. French'? 

Answer. I think there were. 

Question. Do you know what is the present amount of his indebted- 
ness i 

Answer. I do not ; it has been reduced somewhat by his sureties. 

Question. With regard to the fourth item in the charge, defalcation of 
B. P. Runkle, $073.24, do you know if this amount has been stopped 
out ot the pay of Major Kunkle, and received by the United States ? 

Answer. I testified in my direct examination all I knew about that. 
That was, as 1 said, from hearsay. I understood that his pay had been 
stoi)ped previous to his being cashiered. 

Question. With regard to the fifth accusation of a payment made by 
you to B. P. Eunkle of $1,331.03, w^hich you have testified was a loan 
of your own private money to him, and for which you then took his 
note, which has not been paid ; have you that note with you ? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Is it still in your possession'? 



249 

Answer. I believe I have it at my bouse. 

Question. Are you willing to swear distinctly that the sum of $1,331.03 
was ill no part public money ? 

Answer. It was my own private funds ; nothing else in the world. 

Question. Referring to the retained bounty fund, which is the subject 
of a distinct charge, was this fund stopped from soldiers in Virginia and 
North Carolina, who were living within a small area of territory at that 
time in the occupation of the Federal troops ? 

Answer. I judge it was stopped from those soldiers who were enlisted 
in that portion of Virginia andlSTorth Carolina that was then in the occu- 
pation of the Federal troops. 

Question. After this fund came into your hands was it generally 
known in those districts from which those soldiers came that this money 
was to be paid back to them or their representatives ? 

Answer. It was. 

Question. Did claim agents and others interested make strict search 
after these men for the purpose of getting and forwarding their claims ? 

Answer. I judge they did. 

Question. Have you had applications from any parties that were en- 
titled to that fund claiming that they had not been paid? 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. Can you name some of the attorneys through whom you 
paid these claims, or who prosecuted the claims which you paid out of 
this fund? 

Answer. Chipman, Hosmer & Co., of this city ; Wolf, Hart & Co., of 
this city. Those are the principal ones. I believe there was an attorney 
at Norfolk who prosecuted a few. 

Question. Do you remember or can you estimate what proportion of 
these claims were presented through attorneys 1 

Answer. No, sir ; I could not tell with any certainty ; I should think 
at least a quarter. 

Question. Had any considerable number of these claimants found their 
way to Washington, and made their home here ? 

Answer. Some of them had ; not a great many. 

Question. You testified about the cash-book which you kept and have 
now in your possession showing the payments out of this fmiiji. Do the 
entries in that cash-book agree with the entries in your book of records 
now in the possession of the court "? 

Answer. I did not say I had the cash-book now in my possession. 

Question. I misunderstood you then. 

Answer. The entries on it did agree with the entries there. 

Question. What became of the cash-book °? 

Answer. That brings up a case of private grief, which I should rather 
you would not ask me here. 

Question. I understood you to testify you had such a book, and that 
is the reason I made the inquiry. 

Answer. I said I had had one. 

Question. I misunderstood you then. With regard to this fund, can 
you swear positively that you actually have paid out the whole of it, 
either to the claimants or for educational purposes, with the exception 
of the balance which you have turned over ! 

Answer. I cannot swear any more positively than I did on my direct 
examination. 

Question. Well, I wish you to repeat it then. 

Answer. I swear that the payments made to the claimants were made 
just as they are represented in that book, as to amount; as- 1 stated the 



250 

otlier (lay the entries as to date were made by the clerk and might vary 
a few days ; but as to amount, the amount is entered there correctly, 
and the payments made from the interest were made just as I stated; 
just as I swore the other day. 

Question. Can you give the date when you rendered the final account 
■with accompanying vouchers of this fund to General Howard ? [Paper 
shown witness.] 

Answer. 1 cannot ; it was soon after I was relieved. 

The Accused said : I only refer to that paper which yon have in your 
hand. 

Answer. That don't give the date ; I gave them to you ; it only shows 
the date I wrote this letter to you. I wrote this letter the 30th of Jan- 
uary, 1874. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Does that paper which you hold in your hand contain a 
statement of the account ? 

Answer. It does. 

Question. And are these the vouchers referred to in your statement ? 
[Handing witness a bundle of vouchers.] 

Answer. Yes, sir ; these are the ones. 

[The papers were offered in evidence and read to the court. A copy 
is attached to the record and marked Exhibit Y^, there being no objec- 
tion on the part of the judge-advocate,] 

Question, AVith regard to a statement in your testimony before in 
connection with this irregular fund, you stated, as I understood you, 
that a portion of it, before it was turned over to you, had been expended 
by Captain James in North Carolina under the direction of the Com- 
missioner. Are you certain it was in efiect expended under the direc- 
tion of the Commissioner ? 

Answer. As I stated in the direct testimony. Captain James was the 
quartermaster on duty in North Carolina, and this was before the Bu- 
reau had any appropriation, and he had some sort of an asylum on his 
hands, as I remember, for aged people and orphans, and he had not 
money to carry it on with, and he had this retained bounty-money, or a 
portion of it, in his hands, and he asked permission to use a portion of 
that for this puri)ose, and the i^ermission was granted him to do it. I 
gave the figures the other day. He did use some, a little over $7,000 — 
the exact figures are all in my direct testimony. 

Question. At what date did you make the expenditure of $12,000 out 
of this fund for the school-building ? 

Answer. The latter part of December, 1866 ; I think it was the 24th 
of December, 1866. 

Question. That was before the passage of the act to regulate the dis- 
Ijosition of this fund, then 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was this fund ever in the possession of General Howard ? 

Answer. Never was, until 1 turned' over the balance to him when I 
was relieved. 

Question. General Balloch, in the legislation which created the 
Bureau of Freedmen and Eefugees, and in the subsequent legislation 
upon that Bureau, was not the Commissioner of the Bureau recognized 
in the law as the trustee and guardian of the colored people and refu- 
gees in the South. 

[The judge advocate objected to the question. Question withdrawn,] 

Question. What relation with respect to the colored people and refu- 



251 

ees did the acts of Congress in relation to the Bureau of Eefugees and 
Freedmeu place the Commissioner of the Bureau? 

[The judge-advocate objected to this question on the ground that the 
law spoke for itself and the legislation of Congress, and that it was for 
the court to put its own construction upon that legislation. Question 
withdrawn.] 

Question. What construction then was put by the accounting officer 
of the Treasury upon the relation which, by law, existed between the 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau and the refugees and colored 
people of the South ? 

[The judge-advocate here objected unless the witness could speak 
from his own personal knowledge, because the accounting officers could 
be summoned and could testify as to the subject. 

The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced, as the decision of the court, that the obj'ection is sustained. 

The court stated that there was no objection to the witness testifying 
as to what his understanding was of the construction put by the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury upon the relation which, by law, existed 
between the Commissioner and the Freedmen's Bureau, although it was 
of opinion that the accounting officers of the Treasury could be brought 
into court and direct testimony given on the subject. 

The accused stated (through his counsel) that they wished to elicit 
the fact as an explanation of the conduct of the Commissioner and his 
disbursing officers. They were aware it could be proven otherwise, but 
it was very convenient at this stage of the inquiry to have it in.] 

Question. In respect to the matters inquired of in the questions not 
answered, what did you understand to be the opinion of the accounting 
' officers of the Treasury in regard to the relation General Howard occu- 
pied toward the refugees and colored people of the South ? 

Answer. I understood that all matters of whatever nature that 
affected in any way the refugees or freedmeu of the South w^ere put 
under the control and direction of the Commissioner. He was a sort of 
general guardian or trustee for them to protect all their interests. The 
original act gives him very large powers. The accounting officers of 
the Treasury always recognized this relation, as far as I know, in its 
broadest sense. 

Question. All funds appropriated by Congress, and all funds arising 
from rents, and all other funds tlmt you have called loose funds arising 
from the debris of the war, 1 understood were charged upon the Treas- 
ury books to one account, that of the Freedmen and Eefugees' fund ; is 
that correct! 

Answer. You are mistaken. 

Question. Please make it correct. 

Answer. All appropriations made by Congress stand upon the books 
of the Treasurer, credited to the support of the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and all vouchers paid out of these 
congressional appropriations are charged to that one item. 

By the Court: 

Question. That one account? 

Answer. That one account. The Refugees and Freedmen's fund, not 
being an appropriation of Congress, is not on the Treasurer's books of 
the United States, but stands on the books of the accounting officers 
under the head of Refugees and Freedmen's Fund, and all accounts 
paid out of that fund are charged to it. The school-fund arising from 



252 

the sale of confederate property, as provided in tlie twelfth section of 
the act of July, 1866 — that stands on the books of the accouutino- offi- 
cers of the Treasury as the school-fund, and all vouchers paid out of that 
are charged to that fund ; but none of these miscellaneous funds are on 
the books of the Treasurer of the United States, because they are not 
appropriations by Congress. 

By the Accused (through his counsel :) 

Question. I understand from your testimony that upon a warrant of 
the Secretary of War, the Paymaster of the Army drew from the Treas- 
ury, out of the general appropriation made to the War Department for 
the payment of pay and arrears of pay and bounty, the amount of the 
"warrant. Is that a correct statement ? 

Answer. I have not testified anything about that at all ; I do not 
know anything about it. 

Question. You do not know about that ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. When you received money from the paymaster, x>ublic 
money Irom the paymaster, for which you gave him the certificates of 
the Auditor to an equal amount, and you took that money received from 
the iiaymaster and deposited it in the Treasury, to what fund was it 
credited in the Treasury ! 

Answer. It was not credited to any fund; it went to the credit of my 
disbursing account. I only kept one disbursing account with the Treas- 
urer of the United States. 

Question. You do not know, then, whether it was credited to any 
fund there or not ? 

Answer. It was i^assed to my credit as chief disbursing officer of the 
Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. Were appropriations by Congress for expenses of the 
Bureau, other than the payment of bounties, credited also to you upon 
the books of the Treasurer "? 

Answer. The amount of the several warrants that were drawn from 
time to time out of the appropriations of Congress were also j)laced to 
my credit on the books of the Treasurer. 

Question. So fiir as your account went, then, there was only one ac- 
count at the Treasury for all the amounts deposited by you, whether of 
money for bounty or other expenses of the Bureau ! 

Answer. I had but one account with the Treasurer as a disbursing- 
officer. All checks or drafts of whf^tever nature that I deposited with 
the Treasurer went on to the one general account "with me as a disburs- 
ing officer. 

Question. Then, in the payment of these items of $36,314.77, you 
simply drew your cbecks upon the Treasurer, where you had a sufficient 
fund to meet them ? 

Answer. That is it. 

Question. And they were paid like any other checks, where there was 
a fund to meet them 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I understand that at the end of the year you had but a 
small sum distinctly applicable to the i)ayment of bounties — applicable 
to the payment of expenses other than for bounties — and you met the 
expenses, current expenses, other than for bounties, by drawing your 
check in the usual way upon the Treasurer, where you had funds to 
meet it ? 

Answer. There was no exception, whether the expense was for pay- 



253 

ment of bounties or general expenses of the Bureau. I paid, as 1 stated 
yesterday, during the two months and a half that we were without an 
appropriation, I paid such claims as were absolutely necessary ; for 
no particular service ; principally it was for the payment of bounties. 

Question. If I understand you, you were then situated in this wise : 
that if, for want of funds to pay the clerks, you had to discharge them, 
that would put an end to the payment of bounties ? 

Answer. It would. 

Question. If you took some of the bounty-money for a time and paid 
them, it enabled you to pay bounties ? 

Answer. It did. 

Question. And therefore that you took this course in the interests and 
for the benefit of the claimants for bounties ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. As soon as you got the proper money, did you return this 
money to its proper fund °? 

Answer. I did. 
. Qaestion. Was there any loss to the Government by this borrowing 
for a time ? 

Answer. Not a dollar that I know of. It was a gain to the clerks. 

Question. Have you a copy of the appropriation bill for that year 
in your possession f 

Answer. I have a copy of the deficiency appropriation of $127,000. 

Question, Will you read the items that have relation to this matter 
there "? 

Answer. This is an act making appropriations to supply deficiencies 
in the approi)riations for the service of the Government for the fiscal 
years ending Jane 30, l-HJO, and June 30, 1871, and for former years, and 
for other purposes. The act was approved March 3, 1871. The extract 
from it, which relates to the subject under consideration, is as follows : 

Bureau Refugees, Freedraen and Abandoned Lands : For pay of medical officers and 
attendance in Freedineu's Hospital and Asylum at Washington, D. C, .$5,000 ; for medi- 
cines, medical supplies, and rations, $25,000 ; for clothing, |2,500 ; for collecting and 
payment of bounty and other claims to colored soldiers, sailors and marines, or their 
heirs, $40,000; for rent of building outside of the District of Columbia, $4,500; for 
stationery and printing, $5,000 ; for mileage and transportation of officers and agents, 
$4,000 ; for telegraphing and postage, $1,000 ; for unfulfilled contracts for the erection 
and repair of school-buildings and asylums, $40,000 ; making a total of $127,000. 

Question. You have been asked about a voucher rendered in your 
account of a bill of A. R. Shepherd & Brother. Was the origiual 
voucher approved by the Commissioner — I mean the voucher first filed ? 

Answer. I do not think the one that went into the Treasury in my 
appropriation account was approved. 

Question. About what time was that? 

Answer. I think the 21th of March. 

Question. What year ? 

Answer. Eighteen hundred and seventy-one. It was not the custom 
to have duplicates approved ; the copy that is intended to go to the De- 
partment is approved, but the other one is not usually. When I came 
to make up the account for General Howard, when I was relieved, as I 
stated in my direct testimony, when I hunted for the vouchers I could 
not find only one. I went to Shepherd & Brother, and had another one 
prepared. The one that I did find was the one approved by General 
How^ard, and that was the one that I used in the account that I ren- 
dered to him for him to render to the Treasury, which he mislaid, or is 
not able to find. When I came to render the account a few weeks ago, 
after I found that he had not done it, I had nothing left but my dupli- 



254 

cates, and in order to make the account good he had to approve them 
at that time, when I put them in. 

Question. Did he make any objection to approving the account the 
hist time ? 

Answer. Not any, either himself or myself. 

Question. Did he ask any exphxnations about it ? 

Answer. He was very mucli embarrassed to think he couhl not find 
the accounts I had left with him when I was relieved, and said I should 
have to use my duplicates, and he would approve them. 

Question. Do you know who approved that voucher; certified to it ? 

Answer. Mj" impressiou is that it was Maj. J. M. Brown, the quarter- 
master. 

Question. You testified yesterday about General Howard at one time 
being the president of Howard University', and the time when he be- 
came so. Do you remember who was the president of the University 
before him "? 

Answer. There had been two jiresidents before him ; the first one was 
Rev. Charles B. Boyntou, D. D., and the next one was Eev. Byron Sun- 
derland. I do not remember of any other. 

Question. Do you know the fact that General Howard, when he ac- 
cepted the presidency of that institution, did it under any condition ? 

Answer. 1 think there was some condition, but I do not remember 
what it was. 

[The accused (through his counsel) offered in evidence the letter of 
acceptance of the presidency of Howard University.] 

fTlie jndge-advocate objected.] 

The accused (through his counsel) stated that he wished to show by 
that letter tbat General Howard became the president of the Howard 
University upon a certain understanding and under a certain condi- 
tion.] 

Question. Do you know anything about that letter ? 

Answer. It is a letter of acceptance of General Howard of the presi- 
dency of the Howard University. 

Question. Will you read the letter as part of your answer as to the 
condition or understanding upon which he accepted that office ? 

[The judge-advocate objected,] 

The Judge- Advocate said : The gentleman should first show that that 
was the letter written at the time of the acceptance. I have no objec- 
tion to his proving the acceptance of the presidency on any condition ; 
bnt if any document on the subject is to be brought out from General 
Howard it must be shown, first, whether it was sent to the University ; 
then whether it was his letter of acceptance; and, lastly, whether the 
letter contained the conditions of acceptance. 

The Court (through its president) said : We have allowed almost 
every document presented so far to go upon the record, so far as it was 
evidence. 

The Accused (through his counsel) said : The court has often an- 
nounced that this was a court of investigation to ascertain the truth. 
We wish this letter put in — we confess irregularly ; but we ask it sim- 
ply because the court want to know the whole truth of the transaction, 
and it comes in conveniently and appropriately in this order and con- 
nection. 

Question. Do you know the signature to that letter ? 

Answer. It is General Howard's signature. 

Question, Have you ever seen the letter before ? 

Answer. I saw it yesterday in court. 



255 

Qiiestion. IS'ever before that ? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question. Did you ever hear the letter read as one of the trustees of 
Howard Univ^ersity f 

Answer. I coukl not swear positively. I undoubtedly did hear it 
read. 

The Accused (through his counsel) said : May it please the court, we 
do not care anything about the matter, whether the letter goes in now 
or at some future time, upon the understanding which we have from 
the court, that they are disposed, at some stage of these proceedings, to 
hear General Howard's own statement. 

The Court (by its president) said : We will give full Aveight to General 
Howard's own statement. 

The Accused (through his counsel) said : But if the court please, if 
the common-law^ rules are to be enforced, as the judge-advocate sug- 
gests, we cannot put iu General Howard's own testimony. 

The President of the court said : Official documents executed by Gen- 
eral Howard iu due course of business I think can go iu as evidence 
just the same as if they were executed by strangers. 

The Accused (through his counsel) said : Here is a letter signed by 
General Howard ; the handwriting is proved to be his, and it is signed 
O. O. Howard, Brigadier-General United States Arm3^ It is official 
on his part. We would like it to go in at this stage. 

[The judge-advocate renewed his objection. 

The Court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced that the objection is sustained.] 

The Court (by its president) said to the accused: You will have 
plenty of opportunity to prove the letter. 

Question. Since this court has been in session, General Balloch, what 
have your duties been beside attendance on the court as a witness? 

Answer. I have had to attend juy duties as superintendent of the 
streets of this city and Georgetown. 

Question. Would you like to qualify the answer that you have made, 
that the reason that you could not discover certain matters among your 
retained pa})ers was because the court had left you so busy 1 

Answer. I should. I did not intend to imply that. What I meant to 
say was that my attendance here in addition to my duties as superin- 
tendent of streets, which, by the way, are all that I can possibly attend 
to, was the reason I had been enabled to give so little time to hunt up 
certain matters. As superintendent of streets, I have no assistant now, 
and it is just as much as I can do to do the daily duties of the office 
"without anything else to interrupt. 

Ee-direct examination by the Judge- Advocate: 

Question. In your cross-examination you have said that where money 
has been sent to claimants not a cent has been lost, to your knowledge. 
What did you mean by that ? 

Answer. That was when sent by me direct. I meant that the pay- 
ments had been made safely; that the claimants had received the money. 

Question. How did you ascertain that fact ? 

Answer. That qualihcation explains it. I said, to my knowledge, no 
complaint was ever made. 

Question. Tben your knowledge may not have extended to the entire 
number of payments thus made as to whether the claimants had received 
the money or not I 



256 

Answer. It may not. 

Question. You hav^e said that in case of white soldiers paymasters 
alw.iys bad the soldiers' recei|»ts before tliey sent the money. So far as 
you know are you aware whether there was any law or regulation gov- 
erning that subject ? 

Answer. I am not. 

Question. Has your attention ever been directed to the existing regu- 
lations for the government of the Army, in force at the time you were 
disbursing ofiflcer, under the head of public property, money and ac- 
counts ! 

Answer. I think I have read that portion of the Army Eegulations. 

Question. Do you know what paragraph 997 says on the subject of 
taking receipts at the time you were disbursing officer? 

Answer. Yes, I know that, and I know that it was violated every 
day. 

Question. Please read that paragraph. 

(Eeadiuo,:) "All officers are forbidden to give or take any receipt iu blank for public 
money or property; but iu all cases a vouclier shall be made out iu full, and the true 
date, place, and exact amount of money iu words, shall be written out in the receipt 
before it is signed." 

Question. When you say in your cross-examination that you adopted 
a system of payments analogous to that in use in the Army, and among 
disbursing officers, is if not a fact that tliere was a law in those cases 
to the effect that a paymaster may make payments by a check to the 
order of the claimant, where the payment is made direct to the claim- 
ant, or to his lawful representative 1 

Answer. I do not remember any such law as that. I know there is a 
law still in force that all sums of money over $20 shall be paid by 
check ; but yet there is not a paymaster in the Army that has not vio- 
lated it a thousand times, I suppose. 

Question. In the case of Maria Blair, of Edgefield, Ky., you say the 
certiticate was made payable, i)rior to the passage of the act of March 
29, 1SG7, but turned over to the Bureau to facilitate the payment by 
the accounting officer '? 

Answ^er. It was made payable by the accounting officer. 

Question. Did you make that payment, then, under the act of March 
29, 1867, or not ? 

Answer. I made the payment certainly after March 29, but I did not 
suppose that the claimant was debarred from any right which she had 
at the time the certiticate was issued to her. which was previous to the act 
of March 29. All those certificates were made payable to the Freed- 
men's Bureau, in order to facilitate the pnymenrs. There was a large 
lot of them held by attorneys iu this city, and in other places, and they 
sent them generally to the accounting officers of the Treasury and had 
the change made, in order that they might get their fees and be relieved 
of the responsibility of hunting up aiul paying a claimant, putting the 
responsibility on us. That is what they did it for. 

(Question. Then the payments were actually made under the act of 
March 29, 1807 'i 

Answer. Perhaps it might be technically so construed. 

Question. You have said in your cross-examination, as I understood 
you, that the War Department furnished information at one time to 
your office in order to facilitate payments? 

Answer. They did not furnish any. 

Question. Do you know why the War Department did not furnish the 
desired information ? 



257 

Answer. I know tbey give information tlirougli their officers now that 
they never gave to us. 1 never asked for any information. 

(Question. One minute. Was any information ever requested of 
them ? 

Answer. I never requested any except in one or two cases. As I 
stated before, the chiim division was more in correspondence with the 
War Department. I have heard Mr. Drew, while in charge of the claim 
division, hading fault a great many times on account of his inability to 
get desired information from the rolls on file in the War Department. 

Question. Do you know, or have you ever been told by the Commis- 
sioner; that is, have you ever had any conversation with him on the 
subject of what reason was given, or why the War Department did not 
furnish the desired information ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Do you know why St. Clair Maudeville's sureties have been 
prosecuted at the solicitation or request of General Howard ? 

Answer. In order to make good his alleged defalcation, I presume. 

Question. You have said that, early in 1869, the building and lot of 
ground on Seventh street, Washington, purchased about December 24, 
1866, was sold to the Howard University. Do you know by whose 
authority or direction that property was thus sold to the Howard Uni- 
versity f 

Answer. I think by direction of the Commissioner, on consultation 
with myself. I was appointed, as you will see by the copy of the deed, 
the trustee for that particular purchase ; the deed ran to me as trustee 
and I thought it advisable to sell the property, as it had depreciated 
So of course I could not do it without the authority of the Commissioner 
The sale was made upon a consultation with him. 

Question. For what purpose was it sold ? 

Answer. In the main, to get money to put into the fund. Secondarily, 
the Howard University agreed to have the property used, as I stated 
in my direct testimony, as an asylum for idiotic people, where they could 
be treated in connection with their hospital. 

Question. Were those the people who were to be benefited by it ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; we had a large lot of idiotic patients that were 
sent on from the various hospitals in the country when they were broken 
up, and it was hardly proper to keep them in the wards with the other 
patients, and we had this building fitted up in order to keep them there 
by themselves. , 

Question. What was the actual market- value of this property when 
thus sold? 

Answer. It was not worth any more than what it was sold for. 

Question. What, in your judgment, had been the cause of the depre- 
ciation 1 

Answer. The building of the Freedmen's Hospital in the immediate 
vicinity. 

Question. By whom was that building built? 

Answer. The Freedmen's Hospital ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It was built by the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Was it attached to this building that you speak of? 

Answer. It was in an adjoining lot, only a few feet from it. 

Question. When that irregular retained-bounty or substitute fund, if 
I may use that term, was turned over to the Bureau, who took posses- 
sion of it? 

17 H c 



258 

Answer. I clid. 

Question. After the passage of the act of March 2, 1807, wlio had pos- 
session of it "? 

Answer. It still continued ia my hands, under the direction of the 
Commissioner — general direction. 

Question. Did General Howard, the Commissioner, ever call upon you 
to turn over that fund iuto his hands before October 11, 1871 ? 

Answer. He did not. 

Question. You say in your cross-examination that there was a fund 
to meet all the checks for the $30,314.77. 

Answer. A fund ; yes, sir. ' 

Question. Between January 1, 1871, and March 2-1, 1S71, aside from 
the 1,390 odd dollars which you had of your old appropiiation, what 
moneys did you actually check against to meet the general expenses of 
the Bureau "? 

Answer. I had a small balance of the South Carolina school-fund in 
the Treasury. I think there was a small balance of the Refugees and 
Freedmen's fund, and the majority of the money was the fund for the 
bounties themselves. 

Question. Where had you received that bounty-money, from the Pay- 
master of the Armj-, on certificate '? 

Answer. From one of the paymasters of the Army. 

Question. The certificates allowed by the Second Auditor in payment 
of specific bounties ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When was that deticiency appropriation of the act of March 
3, 1871, available ? 

Answer. I testified yesterday, on the 24th of March, 1871. 

Question. What are your office hours as superintendent of streets for 
Washington and Georgetown "? 

Answer. From eight o'clock in the morning until five o'clock in the 
afternoon. 

By the Court : 

Question. Was increased compensation made to General Howard or 
yourself for the increased labor imposed on you by the joint resolution 
of March 29, 1807? 

Answer. My compensation was certainly not increased, and the Bu- 
reau act prohibited General Howard from getting anything for his ser- 
yices on account of being detailed as an officer in charge of it. 

Question, When you did goto Richmond, Va., in 1805, in connection 
with the retained bounty-fund, and for which journey you charged 
your expenses to the interest received from that fund, by what order did 
you go, and what amount did you charge for j'our expenses ? 

Answer. I went on the 17th day of July, 1805 — 17th or 18th. I went on 
the written orders of the Commissioner. I had to stop in Baltimore on 
the way back and spent a day hunting up a matter connected with the 
support of some destitute over there. My whole expense of journey to 
Richmond and back, and my expenses including my expense at Balti- 
more, I think were not far from $50. 

Question. You have stated in the thirteenth day's proceedings of this 
court that yon turned over to the Commissioner $1,028.59, as the balance 
remaining in your hands of the irregular bounty-fund. Please state, if 
you know, if any return was ever made by the Commissioner of the said 
balance, and what became of the balance itself ? 

Answer. He made a return of the balance to the Treasury of the 



■ 259 

Uuited States. Afterward the Secretary of War ordered him to take it 
out of the Treasury and turn it over to the War Department. 

Question. Did he do so to your knowledge 1 

Answer. I have seen the receipt of the disbursing officer, Captain 
McMillan, for the money. 

Question. Can you establish by vouchers, or checks, or other ofiScial 
documents, whether or not the money for the 174 claimants mentioned 
on page 2, Exhibit B, was transmitted by yon or your successors for 
their payment in the manner usual in your office, and that had actually 
l^assed fiom your and their possession for that purpose ! 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) Before that question is an- 
swered, I wish to say that I do not understand that this witness has 
testified absolutely that all these 174 cases were disbursed by him. 

The Cjurt, (by its president :) No, He said some byhim, some by 
Major Brown, and some by General Howard. 

The Accused, (through his counsel :) That question assumes that all 
were disbursed by him. 

The Court, (by its president:) The attention of the witness having 
been called to that, he can modify his answer accordingly. 

Answer. If I can have access to the letter-books of the late Bureau, 
and their check-books on the depositaries (General Howard and Major 
Brown's) with the list of the cases, and when the money purports to 
have been sent, the money purports to have been paid, I think I can 
establish the fact. I should want a list of the cases. 

Question. Are j'ou willing to furnish such proofs I 

Answer. I am willing to undertake anything that the court desires. 

Question. What account or return, if any, was ever made of the in- 
terest received from the investmenfof the retained bounty-fund, invest- 
ed in United States bonds '? 

Answer. I have rendered the account to the Commissioner, and it is 
here in court. 

Question. That is the account put in this morning? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When did you file the duplicate voucher for $16,052.25, 
which was disallowed ? 

Answer. I cannot remember the exact time ; it was about six weeks 
ago, as near as I can recollect. I will get the exact date from the 
Third Auditor's Office. I filed it when I was informed bj' General 
Howard that he did not file the original set, and had lost or mislaid 
them. 

Question. What has become of the $16,652.25 for which you put into 
the Treasury a duplicate voucher, which has been disallowed. 

Answer. I am unable to say what became of it. I would give a good 
deal if I knew. I certainly have not the money myself. 

Question. Can you render a sworn account from your books of the 
expenditures in detail of what is known as the irregular bounty-fund, 
and will you furnish such account to this court i? 

Answer. If I can have permission to take that record-book away from 
the court-room I will undertake the job. (Referring to a book in court.) 

Question. This particular record-book? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Why could you not do it here if you had access to it in 
this room f 

Answer. If I had it at home I could work at night. I am so bus^^ 
during the day that I could not hardly do anything with it. 

Question. Did the Treasury officers ever notify you that they held you 
officially accountable for the balance due to claimants by Maude ville's 



260 

decease, aucl by Agent Euukle aud O. C. Frencb, defjiulters, and when ! 

Answer. They have never notified me of any snch fact that they held 
me responsible for any of those transactions. 

Question. Please state distinctly the different funds connected with the 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedraen and Abandoned Lands from which you 
have disbursed, and the source w hence the money came to make these 
funds ? 

Answer. First, there was the regular appropriations of Congress ; 
second, there was the refugees and freedmen's fund, which I have 
described as the fund arising out of the debris of the war. 

Question. The sale of laiul, the rent of lands, and so on ; all those 
items ? 

Answer. We could not sell any land. 

Question. The produce of the land ? 

Answer. There was the rent of land and the sale of crops. 

Question. You referred to it once as being some $400,000 ? 

Answer. It w\as over $1,800,000. 

Question. Did you give the items of it in any part of your testimony ? 

Answer. I have not given the separate items ; I have them here. 

Question. State them, and in stating them refer to the contributions 
of charitable people. 

Answer. From appropriations of Congress for the support of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and xVbandoned Lands, $11,247,884.59; 
from the refugees and freedmeu's fund, w^hich included money received 
from all miscellaneous sources including donations of charitable people 
for the benefit of the freedmen, $1,882,910.18; from bounty-fund under 
the act of March 19, 1867, $8,468,581.48; from the school-fund created 
under authority of section 12, Bureau act of 1866, $85,682.06 ; for the relief 
of the destitute of Washington, appropriations for three years, $55,000; 
from the retained bounty-fund, $117,992,60; 20 per cent, additional 
compensation to employes, as per act of Congress, $21,830.39 ; what is 
known as the Soutli Carolina school-fund, created under authority of 
section 8, act of 1866, $69,898.70 ; making a total of $21,949,780. 

Question. Did you, when acting as disbursing officer of the Freed- 
meu's Bureau, make any i)rofit by use of the funds intrusted to your 
charge ! 

Answer. I answer most emphatically, no. 

Question. Do you know of any single instance in which General How- 
ard, while acting as Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, ever used 
for his own interest and benefit any of the funds intrusted to him for 
the care of the freedmen ? 

Answer. I answer as before, most emphatically, no. 

Question. Have you accounted to the United States for all moneys 
which have come into your possession on any of the accounts just recited, 
whether of principal or interest, or rents, or premiums on investments, 
or any others; and, if not, please state the exceptions, and the reasons 
therefor ? 

Answer. I have accounted for everything that ever came into my 
hands, as far as I know, to the Treasury of the United States. The 
only exception is the retained bounty fund, and I accounted for that as 
I have stated, until I was directed not to do it any longer. 

Question. To take away the accounts '^ 

Answer. To take away the accounts and vouchers. If these last were 
accounts that I should properly have rendered to the Treasury, in their 
judgment, why did they direct me to take them away? 

On motion the court then, at 10 minutes past 4 p. m., adjourned until 
o-morrow morning, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



261 



TWENTY-FOUETH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, April 10 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuaut to tlie foregoing orders and ailjonrnment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery; 

6. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalry ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate U. S. A., judge-ad vocate ; also, 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Edgar Ketchum, 
esq., and George W. Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The witness, George W. Balloch, resumed the stand, and his pre- 
vious testimony having been read to him, it was declared Ijy him to be 
correct as recorded. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. I have shown you here the record of the court for the 21st 
day, April 7, 1874, containing that portion of your testimony which, has 
not been read to you for correction. Will you please state whether 
you have any desire to correct that testimony 1 

Answer. The record is correct. 

The Accused said, (through his counsel :) With the permission of the 
court, I would state that the witness last evening, in going away from 
the court-room, told me there were some matters which he thought of 
importance in this investigation, but he had not testified to them because 
they had not been directly inquired about. I told him that I thought 
the court would this morning be willing to hear from him, by way of 
explanation, any matter which he might choose to offer bearing upon 
this inquiry. 

The Court said, (through its president :) Can you state a question 
which will draw the explanation out ^ 

The Accused said, (through his counsel :) I can, because he gave me 
the questions. 

The Court, (through its president :) Submit the questions, and I will 
ask them if 1 think they are proper. 

By the Court, (for the accused :) 

Question. Did you have any other books in the desk in which you 
left the retained-fee book; if so, what were they and are they missing? 

Answer. I had a letter-press- book, in which, as I have testified before, 
I kept copies of all telegrams that I sent; in which I kept, also, copies 
of all confidential letters and other matters that would not strictly go 
into the public-records, books ; and I also had a sort of book, which, I 
believe, is usually termed an omnium (jatherum, in which I had been 
accustomed to record decisions of the accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury, of the Quartermaster-General, and of the Commissary-General, 
and all those points where I wanted to keep them as precedents to 



262 • 

go by and act by in particular cases. I also bad two or three books 
l)ertaining to my duties as treasurer of the Howard University. Those 
books were all left in the same desk with the retained-fee book, and I 
have never been able to find one of them since. 

Question. What service, if any, did the agents of the Bureau perform 
for other Departments of the Government '? 

Answer. They assisted the Second Auditor's Office in obtaining in- 
formation relative to matters of dispnted claims growing out of appli- 
cations of heirs for bounty, and helped them in getting evidence in all 
matters of that kind. They helped the Pension Department in the 
same way, and also at some points paid pensions ; at Memphis, in partic- 
ular, our Bureau agents paid the pensions for the Pension Department, 
also paid commutation of rations for those persons who had been pris- 
oners of w^ar for Colonel Bell, the disbursing commissary in this city. 
All through the South where we had agents we disbursed these claims; 
in fact, did everything that pertained to the interest of the freed men. 

Question. Did you ever take measures to jiunish iiersons who had 
defrauded the Bureau in any way, and with what success? 

Answer. I did; in the case of the person who defrauded me out of the 
bounty of Eichard Turner, one Isaac C. Cooper of Boston, I proceeded 
against him in the United States court for the district of Massachusetts 
and succeeded in having him committed to the penitentiary at Charles- 
town, Mass., for three years; in the case of William B. Wiggins, a prom- 
inent citizen of Wilmington, Del., an agent of the Bureau, who forged 
twenty-three of my checks sent to him to pay claimants. 

Question. Forged the checks or the endorsements on them ? 

Answer. Forged the indorsements on them. After eight months' per- 
sistent labor I succeeded in having him convicted by the United States 
court for the district of Delaware, and sentenced, I think, to pay a fine 
of $G,000 and be imprisoned for ten years. In the case of Arthur 
Gaines, out of whose bounty I was defiauded in this city by one 
Daniel Jackson, I had Jackson arrested and ti ied before the court here, 
and, as I stated before, the other day, failed of cojiviction. The Bureau 
agent at Norfolk succeeded in sending one prominent white citizen of 
I^orfolk, named Baker, the chief of police at Norfolk, to the penitentiary, 
Albany, N. Y., for three years. There were three or four colored men 
convicted and sent to the penitentiary in Virginia at different times, and 
I think there was one party convicted at Memphis, and imt in prison, 
and two at Baltimore ; several others were arrested but escaped con- 
viction. 

Question. Do j'ou know anythmg ot a combination of claim-agents 
and others, gotten up in 1868, with the intention to defraud the Govern- 
ment ? 

Answer. In the fall of 1808 I was notified by the Bureau agent at 
Nashville that there had been a combination formed of such persons in 
Kentucky and Tennessee, who would put up a large sum of money for 
the liurpose of a systematic raid, if I may use the expression, upon the 
Freedmen's Bureau. They had aj^proached his clerk with offers to fur- 
nish them with certain information. His clerk had made known to him 
this matter. The agent telegraphed me for instructions. I told him to 
let the clerk go on and get all tlie information he could. He did so and 
furnished me with the information, and I immediately telegraphed to 
the agent in Kentucky, and to several agents in that portion of Tennes- 
see, and afterward I wrote particularly to them, and by that means 
stopped the whole tbing. 
Question. In your answer to a former question, by the words ''original 



263 

set," did you not raeau the vouchers properly belonging to the sup- 
plementary account-current of the refugees and freedmen's fund ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question by the JuDaE-AovocATE, (through the court.) At the 
passage of the act of March 2, 1807, how much of the irregular retained 
bounty fund was there for which you held yourself responsible, or which 
was unpaid to the claimants, including the value of real-estate invest- 
ments and interest-money and bonds, at actual market- value ? 

Answer. I could not tell from memory. I should be obliged to go 
over that record-book, and make it up from that, on account of the ac- 
counts and account-current having been lost. 

Question. I wish to ask whether the retained-bounty-fund register in 
court would indicate the exact amount of money on hand of that fund 
at the date of the passage of the act of March 2, 1807 ? 

Answer. By going over that book, the amount of all paid before the 
passage of the act could be taken oft', and that would show the balance 
unpaid. 

The Judge-Advocate said : I will put in, at some stage of the case, 
unless the accused intends to do so, a copy of the retaiued-bounty 
register. j 

Question by the Judge-Advocate, (through the court.) In order 
to examine into the matter of the disallowance by the Tiiird Auditor of 
the Shepherd voucher for $10,052.25, what papers or records would you 
necessarily have to refer to ? 

Answer. I should want to get the Third Auditor's Department to go 
through my accounts and make a sort of re-examination with me, to see 
if any errors could be discovered, which they are willing to do; gener- 
ally overhaul my disbursing-accounts. I have seen the Third Auditor 
about it, and he is perfectly willing to let his clerks assist me in the 
matter. 

Question. Would not your retained papers furnish you the necessary 
information ? 

Answer. They might to some extent. 

[Examination ended ; the witness then said :] 

Before I leave I wish to correct my testimony in one respect. I 
said when I first came before this court that I had nothing to conceal. 
I am as much interested in this inquiry as General Howard is himself. 
In that voluminous document, which has been sent to Congress, my 
name appears very frequently. It has become a part of the record 
of Congress, and as such goes down to posterity, and, of course, 1 am 
interested in being, if possible, put straight. 

It is as much my interest to be put straight b^'^ this honorable court 
as it is for General Howard. I have nothing to leave my children but 
a good name. In my testimonj^ yesterday in relation to a- cash-book 
which 1 had of this retained-bounty fund, I remarked, when the counsel 
for the accused referred to it, that that called up a matter of private 
grief which I did not like to answer. Well, now, as I said , before, I 
have nothing to conceal, and I propose to waive all matters of a private 
nature, for I do not wish to leave any impression on the minds of this 
court that there is anything that I am afraid of answering. So I have 
brought into court this morning that cash-book ; you will see that it is 
mutilated, [opening the book and showing it to the court.] i!^ow this was 
done — this part was cut out — this was done by my little boy who died 
a year ago, and this book is kept as a sacred memento by his mother. 
Only an liour or two before he died he sat on his bed and made that 
last entry. The judge-advocate in the kindness of his heart did not 



264 

urge tliat question upon me, but I bring it in to show that I do not want to 
conceal anything. 

Tlie Judge-Advocate. I will state that ou examining the book it 
contains nothing pertaining to this investigation at present. The en- 
tries are merely such as a little boy might make about his own private 
affairs. 

The Witness. I will add that my little boy had a great idea of book- 
keeping. He had some chickens, and he had opened an account on this 
book ; on one side he charged himself with the feed purchased for the 
chickens, and on the other side credited the eggs, which he gave his 
mother. Part of it was cut out accidentally. 

By the Court : 

Question. The part which was used by yourself? 

Answer. That he accidentally cut out. I gave the book to him and 
did not tell him he need not cut it out — must not cut it out ; it was 
purely accidental, the whole of it. As I said before, I wish to show the 
court that I have no disposition to conceal anything. 

Question. Did you consider that an account-book, or rather a memo- 
randum-l)ook 1 

Answer: A memorandum-book. 

[The book was measured before the court and found to be twelve and 
a half inches long, and five and three-quarter inches wide.] 

John S. Moody then appeared before the court and was duly sworn 
by the judge-advocate in the presence of the accused. 

By the J udge- Advocate : 

Question. Please give your fall name and general residence. 

Answer. John S. Moody, clerk in the Adjutant-General's Office, and 
reside at ^o. 90S M street, Washington. 

Question. What general duties have you to perform in the Adjutant- 
General's Office? 

Answer. Well, I have charge now of all the matters that were trans- 
ferred to us by the Freedmen's Bureau, and also in connection with the 
closing up of the business of the late Provost-Marshal-General's Office, 
disbursing department. 

Question. Do you know Brigadier-General Howard? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Do vou know of any person by the name of St. Clair Mau- 
deville? 

Answer. I only know what I have seen in the records of the late Freed- 
men's Bureau ; that is all. 

Question. What records are those which you refer to with reference to 
St. Clair Mandeville? 

Answer. Well, no special records in relation to him. I saw his name 
as an agent of the Bnreau at New Orleans on letters addressed to him, 
and various records and reports of the employes. 

Question. AVhat papers are those that you hold in your hands ? 

Answ^er. This is a letter dated Fort Gibson, C. K., February 5, 1873,. 
written by Benjamin Olivia, late sergeant S4th United States Colored 
Troops, now sergeant of Company I, Twenty-fifth Infantry. 

Question. What is that ? 

Answer. That is a letter from the Bureau of llefngees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, claim division, Washington, D. C, January 10, 1871^ 
signed by William P. Drew, agent, &c., late of claim division. 



265 

Question. Wbat are those other letters '? I will first ask, are they from 
the records of the Freedmen's Branch of the Adjutaat-General's Office "l 

Answer. Yes, sir ; they were received ; the letter from Olivia was 
received at the Adjutant-General's Office, Freedmen's Branch, Feb- 
ruary 12, 1873. 

Question. What is this letter ? 

Answer. This is a letter from the Assistant Adjutant-General, Thomas 
M. Vincent, addressed to the Adjutant-General otthe Army, dated March 
10, 1873, in relation to the case of Benjamin Olivia. 

Question. What is that "? 

Answer. This is a press copy of a letter from the Secretary of War to 
General Howard, dated March 10, 1873, in relation to the case of Ben- 
jamin Olivia. This is what is known as a jacket or wrapper on the case 
of Benjamin Olivia. 

Question. What does it indicate? 

Answer. The outer jacket is a copy which we have had made since 
the records were transferred to us 5 the inner jacket, inside, is the origi- 
nal jacket transferred. It indicates that the claim of Benjamin Olivia, 
late sergeant Company 1, 84th United States Colored Troops, was settled, 
by certificate 301801, for $258.00. 

Question. How is it marked with reference to payment? 

Answer. It is marked "paid August 20, 1807." 

Question. Have you made any examination of the records to ascertaiu 
as to the correctness of that settlement"? 

Answer. I have examined what is known as the bounty-register; 
the case is marked on the bounty-register as paid August 20, 1807. I 
have also examined the cash-book ; the cash-book indicates also that 
it was paid on the 20th of August, 1807. 

Question. Paid by whom 1 

Answer. I do not know. There is nothing to indicate who made 
payments on the cash-book. 

Question. What books are these you refer to ? 

Answer. They are the cash-book and the bounty -register of the late 
Bureau. 

By the Judge-Advocate: • 

I now offer these papers in evidence for the purpose of bringing to the 
attention of the court the claim of an individual, marked paid by St. 
Clair Mandeville, about which I desire to submit a motion to the effect 
that the parties who are familiar with the subject either be subpo3naed 
to appear here, or else that interrogatories and cross-interrogatories may 
be sent out to them. 

[The letters and papers were here offered in evidence and read to the 
court. Copies are attached to the record, and marked, respectively, 
Exhibits Z^, A'^, B'^, and C*^, there being no objection on the part of ac- 
cused.] 

Question. Are you familiar with the signature of that letter? [showing 
witness Exhibit A''.] 

Answer. I cannot say that I am familiar enough with it to say that it 
is his signature. 

Question. What records were turned over by the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands bearing upon the 
subject of payments ? 

Answer. In this particular case ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Well, the bounty-register and the cash-book is a record of the 
payment in this case, and this jacket. There may have been other 



266 

matters in the letter-books — sometbiujij of tliat kind relating to it ; there 
was nothing special, though, in regard to this case. 

Question. Do you know anything of the letter-books ? 

Answer. I do not know; I have not made an examination. 

The Judge- Advocate. I will now submit my motion, which is that 
the claimant himself, Benjamin Olivia, and Captain Dawson, Twenty- 
fifth Infantry, be either subpcenaed here or interrogatories and cross- 
interrogatories be sent to them, to ascertain whether in fact this soldier 
has received his pay or not under that certificate of the Second Auditor 
mentioned here in court. 

The Accused, (through his counsel:) May it please the court, 
with regard to this motion, we do not propose to interpose any objec- 
tion to the court's summoning as many witnesses as they please. It 
does not lie in our mouth to make any objection, but we do hold that if 
a matter is to be investigated which may form the basis of a charge 
hereafter in a regular court-martial, that the accused has the right to 
see the witnesses who are produced against him, judge of them by their 
appearance, and question them before the court. 

The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the jadge-advocate 
announced the decision of the court, that "f/je court thinlcs it unnecessary 
to summon witnesses in this case^ 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
We would like, may it please the court, before this matter goes any 
further as to any inquiry, to be furnished with a list of the claimants 
who it is charged have not been paid, by reason of the defalcation of 
St. Clair Mandeville. We have been waiting for it, and expected it to 
be introduced at this time. Until that is introduced, we are completely 
in the dark in the matter. 

By the Court, (through its president,) to the judge-advocate: 
Question. You are willing to furnish that information ? 

Judge-Advocate : 
Answer. Of course I would furnish it if I had it. 

The Court, by its president, said : 
Question. Do you want a list furnished of all the cases growing out 
of the management I 

The Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Answer. We want a list of the cases, the credit of which will cover 
this amount of $8,503.29 from the records of the Bureau, turned over 
to the War Department by the late Commissioner, General Howard. 

By the Judge-Advocate, to the witness : 

Question. Mr. Moody, have you any documents or memoranda from 
the records of the Bureau, turned over to the War Department by the 
late Commissioner, General Howard, sufficient to enable a list to be 
prepared such as has just been referred to by the counsel for the 
accused '? 

Answer. Nothing, whatever, that we have that would enable us to 
furnish a list that would cover that $8,500 defalcation, but I would 
say that, in that list of 174 cases, that there are a great many of those 
cases, those complaint cases, that were paid by Mandeville. That is, a 
payment was made at New Orleans about the time of Mandeville's death. 
There are quite a number of those cases, of the 174 cases, where there 



267 

was nothing in the complaint as received that wouUI connect Mande- 
ville with them except the fact they were paid prior to the date of his 
death. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 
If the court please, I think the answer of the witness answers the 
question of the counsel as to my ability to furnish the list. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

We have the original letter put in evidence of the Secretary of War, 
[Exhibit — ,] with the indorsement of General Howard upon it, referring 
the matter to Edgar C. Beman, who testified here a few days ago. It 
was returned by him with the report stating that all the books pertain- 
ing to the bounty-work, including those of St. Clair Mandeville, were 
forwarded to the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
about the 1st of April, 1872. They should contain the list called for by 
the Secretary of War. I am instructed by my client to say that those 
books and papers were turned over to the Secretary of War. 

The Judge-Advocate. I respectfully object to such statements being 
made to the court with the view of influencing its action, and which are" 
not based ujoon evidence. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) I made the statement as counsel, 
simply as I was instructed to make. 

The Court: 

Question. Are you prepared to prove it ? 
The Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Answer. I am instructed, as counsel, to say that that is the fact. I sup- 
pose we can prove it, but that is as far as my instruction goes. 

The Judge- Advocate. I renew my objection to the remarks of the 
counsel for the accused on behalf of the accused, in which he makes a 
statement of tacts not based upon any evidence yet adduced before the 
court, and makes it, iX)o, in the course of my direct examination, while 
the affirmative is still in progress, and I respectfully move that they 
be considered as expunged from the record. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
reopened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced that the decision of the court is, that the court will not 
order the remarks of counsel to be expunged ; having been nttered, they 
remain as a part of the history of the case, but the statement of counsel 
is not evidence. 

The court then, at 3.05 o'clock p. m., adjourned until Monday the 13th 
instant, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



TWENTY-FIFTH BAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, ISio. 1816 F Street, 

^Yashingto7l, D. C\, April 13, 1871 — 11 a. la 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 



268 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartertnaster-Genera], U. S, A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. Jobu Pope, U. S. A,; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Tliird Artillery, U. S. A.: 

6. Col. J. J. Eeyuolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A.; judge-advocate; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. 
Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday Avere read and ai)proved. 

The testimony of the witness, George W. Balloch, taken on Friday 
last, Avas read to him, and by him declared to be correct as recorded. 

The Judge-Advocate. If the court please, I understand that General 
Balloch, who is here in court, knows something about the passage of 
the act of March 2, 18G7, with reference to the irregular bounty- fund. 
As a question may arise as to how far the accused would be excused by 
being made a trustee by Congress without his knowledge or consent, 1 
respectfully suggest the propriety of making an inquiry whether Gen- 
eral Howard had any knowledge, knew of, consented to, or moved him- 
self toward obtaining the passage of that act. It is simply in view of 
the legal point that may arise in the minds of the court. 

The President. I suppose that his accepting the trust under the 
law and discharging the duties of it would be an acceptance, even if not 
conveyed in words. It seems to be an inference so strong that it is 
hardly worth while proving it. 

Hon. Ezra B. French, a former witness, was then recalled and ex- 
amined in the presence of the accused, as follows: 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Mr. French, has your attention at any time been directed to 
the act of Congress approved March 2, 1807, entitled "An act to regulate 
the disposition of an irregular fund in the custody of the Freedmen's 
Bureau f ' 

Answer. It has. 

Question. Do you know whether or not, in the course of your official 
duties as Second Auditor, you have, since the i)assage of that act, been 
required to render any decision or make any rule in your Office under 
that act "? 

Answer. I could not speak with certainty in relation to that. I know 
very well ihat the question came up in my Office — how it came up I do 
not know — that involved the question of jurisdiction, whether my Office 
had jurisdiction in the settlement of disbursements under that act; and 
I remember very well expressing the opinion that it did not belong. 
I recollect that, i)ut I do not recollect the circumstances under which it 
was done. I made up my mind that I had nothing to do with it, and 
so expressed myself at the time. 

Question. Do you know whether vouchers were ever rendered to your 
Office pertaining to the disbursement of this fund ? 

Answer. There was a bundle of vouchers brought in by General Bal- 
loch on the 10th of May, 1870, purporting to be vouchers for the dis- 
bursements under that act, from December, 1805, up to February, 1870. 
The record of the Office shows that General Balloch withdrew tliat bun 
die of vouchers on the 25th of May, 1870, but I cannot say now whether 
it was by direction of myself or whether it was by direction of the Sec- 
ond Comptroller. My impression is that I had a conversation with 



269 

General Ballock ou the subject, but I am not sure. I would not under- 
take to say. I cannot remember distinctly. 1 do not usually try to 
charge my mind with matters that should be matters of record. I pre- 
fer to keep my mind as free from all details of that kind as possible, 
because 1 am getting old, and I might break down by attempting to 
carry my Office in my head instead of in the records, as it ought to be. 

Question. Can you state, for the information of the courr, why, in 
your judgment as Second Auditor, vouchers in that case should not be 
rendered to you ? 

Answer. It ai)peared to me that it would properly go with the gen- 
eral fund for the Freedmen's Bureait. The act made General Howard 
not only the custodian of the fund but the trustee of it also. He was 
required to render an account when he had got through — he or his suc- 
cessor — to the Treasury Department, without specifying where it should 
go; and it seemed to me that the i>roper officer to settle that account 
would be the one who would hare charge of the general account of the 
disbursements of the fund belonging to the Freedmen's Bureau ; my own 
Office was confined, so far as the freedmeu were concerned, to the settle- 
ment of the pay and bounty claims; nothing more. 

Question. When you speak of the Free'dmen's, Bureau fund, what de- 
scription of fund do you mean ? 

Answer. Well, I had reference to his general accounts — all things that 
he was required to perform. 

Bv the Court : 
Question. Other than the payment of bounties I 

Answer. Other than the payment of bounties. Eclating to education 
and every other thing connected Avith it — multifarious. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 
Question. Where were such accounts returnable ? 
Answer. To the Third Auditor. 

The accused (through his counsel) stated that he had no questions 
to ask tliis witness. 

By the Court : 

Question. You said in one place, December, 18G5; do vou mean 1SG5 
or 1867 ? 

Answer. Eighteen hundred and sixty-live. The account was from De- 
cember, I860, I think. 

Question. There are some trusts in connection with the Indian Depart- 
ment ; has 3'our Office anything to do with them — with the settlement 
of those accounts ? 

Answer. We settle the account of the Secretary of the Interior, who 
is the trustee. 

Question. Do you remember if there are certain Indian trust-bonds, 
which are kept in the Interior Department, or were formerly 1 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Those are trusts created by an act of Congress ! 

Answer. They are. 

Question. Who is trustee in that case 1 

Answer. The Secretary of the Interior. 

Question. Does he settle through your Office his account as such ? 

xVnswer. His account is settled through my Office, and the clerk is 
sent down there for the purpose of examining the bonds at the time the 



270 

account is settled, to see that the bonds are actually there at tlie time 
of settlemeut. 

Question. Do you understand that this trusteeship of the Freedmen's 
Bureau was of a similar nature, created by act of Congress, imposed 
upon an official person '? 

Answer. 1 so regard it ; I never had occasion to examine it much. 

Question. Would not tliat require the same sort of settlement as ap- 
plies to the Secretary of the Interior in the settlemeut of his accounts ? 

Answer. It would depend somewhat upon the phraseology of the law. 
I think that this law is not drawn very carefully with reference to that 
question. It only provides that -he shall turn over the balance to the 
Treasury which may be in his hands at the time of his — he or his suc- 
cessor — at the time of closing up. 

Question. Then this law is peculiar in requiring the settlement to be 
made of the balance, but not of the account generally ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did you or did you not consider that he was only required 
to settle for the balance at the time of closing up? 

Answer. That would be an inference that I would have. I would not 
express an opinion. 

Question. How are the accounts for the Soldiers' Home settled ; do 
you know ? 

Answer. They are settled through my Office. 

Question. That is also a trusteeship ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Created by act of Congress ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Imposed upon official persons? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do they render vouchers for all their expenditures? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I wish to say by way of explanation— it occurred 
to me that there might be some misunderstanding about it — that in 
speaking of dates in reference to the bundle of vouchers that were 
furnished in my ofiice, I follow the record which I have in my office, 
and that is all my jjersonal knowledge in reference to it. As to the 
question, the question was asked me whether there might not be some? 
mistake about the time, as I spoke of December, 18G5. It appears on 
the record that these vouchers covered the period from December, 1865, 
to February, 18G7. 

Examination ended. 

Andrew Cauldwell then appeared before the court, and being 
first duly sworn, in presence of the accused, testified as follows : 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and general resi- 
dence. 

Answer. Andrew Cauldwell, chief of division, Third Auditor's Office; 
residence, 1412 Eleventh street, northwest. 

Question. Have you, as directed, brought the accounts filed in the 
office of the Third Auditor of the Treasury of George W. Balloch, late 
disbursing officer of the Freedmeu's Bureau, from January 1 to July 31, 
1871, inclusive? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Court. What do you intend to prove ? 

The Judge-Advocate. With the permis.sion of the court I inteud to 



271 

prove by this witness, by tbe production of official accounts, tbat in the 
months of January, February, March, May, June and July, 1871, George 
W. Balioch, disbursing ofticer and agent of the late Commissioner, did, 
with his sanction and a|)proval, use for the purpose of paying the ex- 
lienses of the late Bureau, the funds held either for the jtayment of 
claims of colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, their legal representa- 
tives, or for other distinct purposes, $73,048.40, thus leading to the filing 
of vouchers covering a time subsequent to the actual date of payment 
with the Third Auditor, and the consequent rendition of false accounts 
to the Second Auditor. 

I can, I believe, by the witness on the stand, establish the entire sum 
of $73,048,40, referred to more particularly in detail in Major Vincent's 
letter, which forms a part of Exhibit B in evidence, and is marked letter 
C on page 11 of that exhibit. 

That letter on this subject begins with the words "according to said 
records and the accounts as stated in the Treasury Department, no dis- 
bursements were made in payment of expenses of the Bureau from Jan- 
uary 1st to March 24th, 1871, &c." 

I propose to show that $49,199.55 were paid out by the Commissioner, 
when in point of fact there was really in the Treasury to be used lor 
the purpose of paying expenses, as shown by the vouchers, only 
$1,391.98; therefore, deducting the $1,391.98 from the $49,199.55 would 
leave $47,807.57, as the amount which, it is alleged, was disbursed 
by the Commissioner, or his chief disbursing ofticer, and I can es- 
tablish that these amounts were drawn from the Treasury. Now, on 
March 24th, 1871, the deficieucy appropriation of Congress became 
available for making payments for past expenses of the Bureau, viz, 
$127,000. This sum was exhausted early in May of that year, be- 
cause $47,807.57 of it was used to make good money belonging to 
other appropriations, which between January 1st and March 24th had 
been used to pay the current expenses of the Bureau. From about 
the middle of May, 1871, until the 22d of July, 1871, the additional sum 
of $25,240.83 was taken from other approi)riations, to be used for the 
current expenses of the Bureau. On the 22d day of July the appropri- 
ation for that year, viz, from June 30, 1871, to June 30, 1872, became 
available, and then the Commissioner or his chief disbursing ofiicer, 
acting under him, returned to the other funds the $25,240.83 which he 
had used to pay the current expenses of the Bureau. Therefore, there 
are two sums, as the court Avill see, at two difierent x^e^iods, between 
January 1st, and July 22d, 1871, which were diverted, as urged, from 
their appropriate use, to i^ay the current expenses of the Bureau ; the 
one of $47,807.57 to pay the current expenses from January 1st to 
March 24th, when the Bureau was without funds appropriated for that 
particular purpose ; and the next from about the middle of May until 
about July 22d, 1871, amounting to $25,240.83, when the deficiency appro- 
priation of $127,000 had been exhausted and the regular appropriation 
for the year 1872 was not available. As soon as it was available, I un- 
derstand they transferred it. Thus the two sums together, viz, the 
$47,807.57 and the $25,240.83, make the total of $735148.40, which is the 
amount mentioned at the top of page 3, Exhibit B. To prove this con- 
secutively I will have to go over all these vouchers. Unless stopped by 
the court, I will, of course, proceed to put each one of these vouchers in 
evidence in order to show the date of payment and the date on which 
the receipt purports to have been signed. 

The court was about to be cleared for deliberation, when the judge- 



272 

advocate requested permission to ask a few preliminary questions of 
the witness, which was granted. 

Question. Please refer to the account-current for the mouth of Janu- 
ary, 1871, and state to the court, Jirst, what amount is shown as on hand 
December 31, 1870, or January 1, 1871, whichever it may be; second, 
what amount is shown to have been disbursed during that month ; and, 
tliird, what balance, if any, is shown to have been on hand January 31, 
1871. 

Answer. The account-current for the Bureau Eefugees, Freedmeu 
and Abandoned Lands: Balance on hand December 31, 1870, $1,391.98, 
which was taken up on his account-current January 1, 1871. There 
were no disbursements that month out of that appropriation. 

Question. What balance, if any. is shown to be on hand January 31, 
1871! 

Answer. The same balance, of course; no disbursements; the same 
balance, and the same balance taken up in February. 

Question. Who rendered that account-current to the Treasury ! 

Answer. General George W. Balloch. 

Question. In what capacity ? 

Answer. As chief disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, I pre- 
sume ; so understood, so recognized. 

Question. With reference to the account-current for February, 1871 ; 
please answer with reference to that the same as to my last question. 

Answer. As in the January account it takes up the balance on hand 
in January and continues it ; no disbursements. 

Question. Who is that signed by 'I 

Answer. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer. 

Question. Please refer to the account-current for March and answer 
the same question. 

Answer. The account-current for March takes up the same balance as 
on hand in February, $1,391.98, and on the 21:th March received from 
the Treasury draft No. 811, on war- warrant No. 610, for $127,000. That 
was the deficiency appropriation. That account shows disbursements 
to the amount of $92,709.45, as per vouchers and abstracts. 

Question. What balance, if any, is shown to be on hand on the last 
day of that month ? 

Answer. $35,782.53. 

Question. Is that account-current or, if not, are the sub-vouchers or ab- 
stract approved by anybody % if so, please state who, and what form the 
approval takes. 

Answer. The approval takes the usual form ; it reads : 

I Lave examined the vouchers on the above abstract and hereby approve the 
same. 

O. 0. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Question. Are you familiar with General Howard's and General Bal- 
loch's signatures I 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Can you state whether on those documents the signatures 
are genuine or not 1 

Answer. I believe them to be. 

Question. Please refer to the account-current for April, and answer 
in extenso the same as you have the other. 

Answer. In April, General Balloch takes up the balance, $35,782.53, 



273 

4hat was on hand in March, and disburses ont of that $12,771.12; leav- 
ing on hand a bahiuce of -$23,011.41. 

Question. The vouchers in that case, or the abstract accompanying 
the said vouchers, if any abstract did accompany, has whose approval, 
if any f 

Answer. It has the approval of General Howard : 

I have examined the vouchers noted on the above abstract, and hereby approve 
the payment of the same. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Br'uj. Gen., U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Question. What is the date of that approval ? 

Answer. It does not bear any date. It is the abstract for the month 
of April. The iiidoi'sements show it was for payments made dm ing the 
month ; there is no direct date. It is not considered necessary. 

Question. Please refer to the account for May, and answer as to that. 

Answer. May takes up the balance, $23,011.41, and disburses 
-$10,216.80; leaves a balance on hand of $12,794.55. 

Question. George W. Balloch's account ? 

Answer. These are all Balloch's accounts. The abstract in this case 
is approved by E. Whittlesey; in the absence of Brigadier-General How- 
ard the assistant adjutant-general signs for him. 

Question. That is tor what month f 

Answer. Mav, 1871; using the same phraseology in the approval. 

Question. Please now refer to the June account. 

Answer. The account-current for June takes up the balance of 
$12,794.55; disburses $10,109.57; leaving a balance of $2,684.98. 

Question. That is General Balloch's account? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Who approved of the abstract in that case? 

Answer. General Howard, in the usual form. 

Question. Please now refer to the July account. 

Answer. In the July account- current. General Balloch takes up 
the $2,684.98 on hand at the end of the previous month, and receives 
from the Treasury Department draft 2,149, on war-warrant 1,995, 
for $173,919.21. That was the regular appropriation. He disbursed 
of that, as per vouchers, $42,492.13, leaving a balance on hand of 
$134,118.06. 

Question. By whom were vouchers in that case approved, or the ab- 
stract ? 

Answer. Approved by General Howard,. in the usual form. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
reopened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced that the decision of the court is that "the court will now pro- 
ceed to examine the vouchers, abstracts, and accounts current sub- 
mitted to it under the second part of heading 8, pages 2 and 3, Exhibit 
B, and ascertain what they show in reference thereto."] 

By the JuDas- Advocate : 

Question. Before going into that, I will ask, what is the certificate 
made by General Balloch on all the accounts-current to which you have 
here referred ''} 

Answer: 

I certify that the above accounts and exhibits are a true statement of all moneys 
received, expended, or transferred on account of expenditure of appropriation not 
heretofore accounted for, and that the balance is due the United States, and is depos- 
ited as above stated. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General, and Chief Dishursiny Officer, 
18 H C 



274 

That is the n.sual form ou all of them, I think. 

Question. Glance at all of them, and see. 

Answer. That seems to be the same. All the accounts from January 
to Jnly, inclusive, have the same certificate. 

Question. Please refer now to voucher I^o. 7, filed with the account of 
March, 1871, and state to the court, first, in whose favor is said 
voucher; second, on what account; third, the amount thereof ; and fourth, 
read the receipt thereto ; and fifth, answer whether said voucher bears 
the approval of General Howard ; and if so, read it. 

Answer. John H. Wager, for services as Bureau agent at Huntsville, 
Ala., froui the 1st Deceaiber, 1870, to the 31st December, 1870, inclu- 
sive; being' one month, at $150 a month. 

Question. State on what account. 

Answer. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. What account was it ])ayable from ? 

Answer. From the appropriations. 

Qnestion. Read the receipt. 

Answer : 

Received, Wasbingtou, D. C, this 24th day of March, 1871, of George W. Balloch, 
brevet brigadier-general, chief disbursing oiBcer, !|150, in full of the above acconnt, 
by checks Nos. 16 and 17, on the assistant treasurer of the United States at New York, 
Jan. 6th, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) 

JOHN H. WAGER, 
Agent Bureau Befugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

By the Court : 

Question. What is the time covered by that voucher ? 

Answer. From the 1st to the ."ilst of December, 1870, inclusive ; one 
month. 

Question. What is the date of payment 1 

Answer. March 124, 1871. The dates of the checks appear to be Jan- 
nary 6, 1871. 

Question. Is the time the voucher covers subsequent to the date of 
payment ? 

Answer. No; prior. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Qnestion. By whom is the voucher approved ? 

Answa'r. It is certified to by E. Whittlesey, acting assistant adjutant- 
general. 

Question. Please refer to the abstract, now, and state by whom the 
abstract reciting that voucher is approved. 

Answer. The abstract is approved by Brigadier-General O. O. 
Howard. 

Question. Does it recite the voucher "? 

Ans\Yer. It says: " Voucher No. 7." Yes, sir, also. 

Question. Does it contain voucher No. 8 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Please refer now to voucher No. 8. 

Answer. Voucher No. 8 : " The United States to J. H. Wager, for cash 
paid for postage on letters and packages on the public service, received 
and sent by him from the 1st of December, 1870, to the 31st of December, 
1871, inclusive, $3.00." That is a clerical error; it should be 1870, and 
not 1871. It was for one mouth. 

I certify on honor that the foregoing account is correct and just; that the letters 
and iiackages on which postage has been paid were on public service, and that I 
have actually paid the amount charged. 

JNO. H. WAGER, 
A. B. B., F. 4- A. L. 



275 

Received, Washington, D. C, tliis 24th day of March, 1871, from Brevet Brig. Gen. 
Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, three dollars in full of the above account, 
by check No. 17, on asst. treasurer at New York, dated January (ith, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) 

JOHN H. WAGER, cfc. 

Question. Please now refer to voucher No. 9 of that account for March, 
which ajipears to be on the same abstract. 

Answer. Yes, sir; voucher No. 9 is to the Washington Gas-Light 
Company, for gas consumed at headquarters Bureau Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, and at the Washington General Hospital, 
during the month of December, 1870, viz, 67,200 feet at 40 cents per 
thousand feet, $208.80; deduct ISf per cent. $50.40; net amount, 
1218.40. 

I certify on honor that the above account is correct and just; that the gas was 
consumed as stated, and was necessary for the public service. 

E. WHITTLESEY, 

A. A. A. a. 
By the Court : 

Question. What is the time covered by tlie voucher "? 

Answer. For the month of December, 1870. 

Question. What is the time of payment "i 

Answer. March 24. 

Question. Is the time covered by the voucher subsequent or prior to 
the payment? 

Answer. Prior to the payment. 
By the Judge Advoca'ie : 

Question. Is the voucher approved ? 

Answer. No, sir, it is certified ; the approval is on the abstract. 

Question. Does the same remark apply to the other oue "? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Then, you did not, in your answer, mean to say that they 
were approved, each one, but that they were approved as a whole on 
the abstract. ' 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. The ordinary certificate made by a disbursing officer ? 

Answer. By an officer having cognizance of the fact; General Whit- 
tlesey. 

Question. But not the approval of a commanding officer? 

Answer. No, sir. The receipt to the voucher is as follows : 

Received, Washington, D. C, this 24th day of March, 1871, from Brevet Brig. Gen. 
George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bui'eau Refugees, Freed men and Aban- 
doned Lands, $218.40, in full of the above account, by check No. 2(i20 on the United 
States Treasury, dated January 6, 1871. 

J. D. GURLEY, 

For Gaslight CompaHij. 

It is accompanied by the bills of the different hospitals and Bureau, ac- 
companied by these sub- vouchers from the gas company. 

Question. Please refer to voucher No, 12, rendered with that account 
for the month of October, 1871, and state what sort of an account it is. 

Answer. It is Langran, Ogilvie «& Co., for stationery furnished the 
office of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, during the months of October, November, and De- 
cember, 1870, as per annexed statement, making the total amount of it 
as $82.30. Do you want me to read the sub-vouchers ? 

Question. No. State what this receipt purports to show. 



276 

Answer. It was certified to on lionor by General Ballocb as bein^" cor- 
rect, that the stationery was furnislied as stated, and it was necessary 
for the public service. The receipt is (hited : 

Keccived, Wasliington, D. C, this 24tb day of March, 1871, of Brevet Brigadier-Gen- 
eral George W. Balloi'b, di-bursiug officer, |82.30, by cbeck 2618 ou tbe United States 
Treasury, dated January G, 1871. 

[Signed by tbe tiriu of Langrau, Ogilvie & Co.] 

Question. Refer to the voucher No. 13 for that same month. 

Answer. The United States debtor to J. B. Coons for his services as 
agent of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, 
jSTashville, Tennessee, from December 1, 1870, to December 31, 1870, in- 
clusive, being one month, $175 per month, certified to on honor by 
General Whittlesey as being correct and just, &c. The receipt says: 

Received, Washington, D. C, this 24th day of March, 1871, from Brevet Brigadier- 
General George W. BaUocb, chief disbursing officer, §175 in full of the above account, 
by checli No. 20 ou tbe United States assistant treasurer at New York, dated January 
G,'^1871. 

[Signed in duplicate by J. B. Coons, Agent Bureau, &c.] 

Question. Is that account and the one of Langran, Ogilvie & Co. ou 
the same abstract for March approved by General Howard? 

Answer. Ye«, sir. 

The Judge-Advocate said : My attention having been directed to 
the paragraph on page 3, Exhibit B, which says "Vouchers covering the 
time subsequent to the actual date of ])ayment, and therefore erroneous, 
$73,048.40," as standing by itself, and that the use of the words there 
means more particularly tliat vouchers are intended to be represented 
as vouchers for services which were rendered actually after the date of 
the payment, I desire to say that I have no evidence which will show 
that any vouchers were actually rendered for services for which pay- 
ment was made by cheek before the services were rendered ; but as I said, 
when spoken to on the subject, before the court was last cleared, I refer 
to the letter of Major Vincent, Exhibit B, letter C, on page 11, which 
was referred to in this letter of the Secretary of War ou page 3, as 
explaining what 1 understood to be his, the Secretary's, meaning. I 
find that I can i)rove that the identical sum which the Secretary of 
War mentions of $73,048.40 appears on these records as money which 
was pai<l at a time prior to the actual rendition of vouchers to the 
Treasury ; in other words, that when the Bureau agent had no money 
available to make those payments for services rendered at a previous 
period, he took money Irom other appropriations to make the payments, 
and subsequently, when the deficiency l)ill was passed, or the money 
becamii available on the regular appropriations, he then filed in the 
Treasury the vouchers for these payments which had been made out of 
other funds at an earlier date, claiming credit therefor as of the date of 
actual tiling, and transferred back to the appropriation Irom whence 
that money had been taken the sums which had been thus taken. 

The Accused (through his counsel) said : I wish to ask the judge- 
advocate whether that Hem of $36,314.47 at the top of page 3 is included 
in the next item of $73,048.40. I am willing to state that upon an 
examination of the book I cannot explain the figures. 

The Judge- Advocate. Thirty-six thousand three hundred and four- 
teen dollars and seventy-seven cents is a different item entirely, as I 
am at present advised. 
The Court. What is it ? 



277 

The Judge-Advocate. I propose to show an expenditure of tliat 
amount of money from a specitio api)ropriation for the support of the 
Bureau, made for specific purposes, one of which was the payment of 
bounty ; the expenditure being to pay debts created by the Bureau at 
an anterior period of time. Of conrse there are hiws governing that 
subject, and the court will be called upon to determine when it gets 
the account before it whether the law was violated or not. 

The President, What anterior period of time 1 

The Judge- Advocate. Well, before that appropriation applied ; prior 
to the first of July, 1S71. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The judge-advocate, may it 
please the court, has stated expressly that he has no evidence whatever to 
prove this charge — vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date 
of payment — and, therefore, erroneous $73,048.40. He states expressly 
that he has no evidence to prove that charge, but he claims that there 
is another charge which has not been made, but which may be inferred 
from evidence which he has since obt lined, and that is the charge which 
has not been made by the Secretary of War, upon which he is now pro- 
posing to offer testimony. I only suggest to the court whether or not 
they are confined to the charges. 

The President. In answer to that I will say that the court is not 
limited to these eight headings of the Secretary of War. In my opinion 
he has clearly fallen into an error in the wording of that second heading 
at the top of page three. The court will construe that paragraph hy 
the subsequent papers, to which he therein refers, in close proximity with 
the paragraph, namely, the letter of Vincent, and the duplicate state- 
ments following, nuirked A, B, and C. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Then it follows that although 
the officer might be acquitted on a charge, yet he might be convicted on 
a specification. 

The President. There are no charges and specifications technically 
before us. It is an investigation. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The joint resolution w*hich' 
created this court directed them to fully investigate the charges con- 
tained in certain communications, and we do not object to the taking 
of this testimony ; we do not fear the result of the taking of this or 
any other testimony, I declare now, in all sincerity to the court, that 
I made that suggestion to the court for fear that trouble might arise 
hereafter in some review of the proceedings. We do not object to 
going into the testimony at all. In regard to this particular item of 
$73,048.40, we do not know enough of the facts to be pre})ared to admit 
as to whether or not the thirty-six thousand and odd dollars form a 
part of it or not. We suppose that General Balloch must know the 
fact, but in his absence and without inquiry of him, we would not be 
able to admit anything in regard to it. 

The President. The resolution which you have read was acted upon, 
as you remember, the very first day of our session. It involves two 
communications of the Secretary of War, with their api)endices or re- 
ports attached thereto, the whole of which constitutes the matter which 
we are to investigate and inquire into. It is very important and very 
proper that ihe judge-advocate should, as near as possible, ascertain 
and determine the subject-matter of the inquiry. He has endeavored 
to do so, and we must give him credit for having done so ; but thus far 
the court has not agreed to accept his limiting the investigation to the 
collated brief which he prepared, and the court has gone on investigat- 
ing the whole matter carefully, not desiring to hold the accused to any 



278 

direct line of defense, and I do not suppose that we will attach much 
importance to the accuracy of these two amounts at the top of page 3. 
Nevertheless, the opinion of the court thus far is, that that paragraph 
of the Secretary's letter will be taken as qualitied by the subsequent 
papers to which he refers therein, mostly the statements on pages 13 
and 14, headed letters A and B, of Exhibit B. 

By the Judge-Advocate, (to witness :) 

Question. Do you know whether any tabular statement has been made 
up from these vouchers? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I know there has beeu one. 

Question. By whom was it made ui) ? 

Answer, It was made up by Mr. Harrison, under the direction of Mr. 
Moody. Mr. Moody and Mr. Harrison both examined these accounts 
and took all the figures off the vouchers. 

[Examination suspended.] 

The Judge-Advocate. If the court please, I have a witness 
present who can swear as to the correctness of this tabulated statement ; 
a list of all the vouchers, when paid, &c. By a couple of questions I 
can si.ive myself the trouble of calling for every voucher, and also save 
the trouble of putting them in evidence. He is an accountant and 
expert. 

The President. Does it contain the date of payment by check as 
well as the date of the voucher I 

The Judge- Advocate. Certainly. 

William H. Harrison then appeared before the court, and being 
duly sworn by the judge-advocate in the presence of the accused, tes- 
tified as follows : 

Examined by the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What is your name, residence, and occupation ? 

Answer. William H. Harrison, clerk Adjutant-GeneraPs Office, War 
Department. Residence, Laurel, Md. 

Question. Prior to being a clerk there where were you employed ? 

Answer. I was clerk in the office of the Second Auditor of the Treas- 
ury. 

Question. That tabular statement which you hold iii your hand, do 
you know whether or not that is the statement just referred to by Mr- 
Cauldwell in your presence ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it is. 

Question. By whom was it made out ? 

Answer. By myself. 

Question. From what was it taken ! 

Answer. From vouchers loaned by the Third Auditor of the Treasury. 

Question. To whom were they loaned ! 

Answer. To General Vincent. I will state in explanation of that, that 
General Vincent wrote a letter to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, 
requesting that I might be allowed to make such examination as might be 
required, audi then obtained ])ermission from the Third Auditor's Office 
to take the vouchers to the Adjutant-GeneraPs Office, where I made the 
examination. 

Question. Who gave them to you ? 

Answer. Mr. Cauldwell. 

Question. As the result of your examination, have you prepared that 
list, aiul how far is that list a correct list, with reference to these 
vouchers I 



279 

Answer, To tlie best of my knowledge and belief it is correct. 

[The jndge-advocate offered the tabnlar statement in evidence, and 
there being no objection on the part of the accused, it was received, 
considered as read, and markel Exhibit C^.] 

Cross- exa m ined. 

By Mr. Dyer, (of counsel for the accused :) 

Question. When did you make up this list ? 

Answer. 1 could not give the exact date ; it was sometime, I think, 
prior to November, 1873 ; not having the means of ascertaining the 
exact date, I am not jtrepared to state now. 

Question. Could you not state, from your other engagements and em- 
ployments, more nearly the time than that ? 

Answer. Well, 1 only know from the fact that 1 was off on leave of 
absence during the early part of November, and I think the latter part of 
October, and it was prior to that, I think between the 1st of July, 1873, 
and the 1st of November, 1873. 

Question. What Mr. Moody was this that went with yon"? 

Answer. That went with me? 

Question. Yes. Who was engaged in this matter ? 

Answer He did not help to prepare this list. It was all prepared by 
myself, with the exception of some few sheets, prepared by Mr. Muzzy, I 
think. 

Question. Had Moody anything to do with it? 

Answer. No; only in supervising the manner of making it up. 

Question. You made it up under his direction, then f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Which Mr. Moody is that"? 

Answer. John S. Moody, chief clerk Preedmeu's branch, Adjutant- 
General's Offlce. 

Question. Have you seen this Exhibit B, [showing witness page 3 
of Executive Document, House of Representatives, No. 10, Forty-third 
Congress, 1st session ;] have you seen this printed exhibit ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. Where do you find in these exhibits that item, .$36,314.77 ? 

Answer. I do not understand that I was questioned at all as to that 
item. 

Question. I ask you the question. 

The President. You must answer the question. 

'Answer. I was questioned in relation to the $73,048.40. I do not 
think it is proper for me to answer that question. 

Question. Where do you find in these exhibits that item of $36,314.77 ? 

Answer. I understood, may it please the court, that I was examined 
on this item of $73,048.40. This $36,314.77 has nothing whatever to 
do with the other. 

The President. Explain ; because that is the question now asked 
you. Answer the question if you know. 

Answer. Well, that item of $36,314.77 is not exactly the correct amount, 
I believe, by a hundred and thirty-odd dollars and some cents; the cor- 
rect amount I could furnish you in a few minutes. That sum, or the correct 
sura, is made up of payments made from the appropriations for the 
fiscal vear ending June 30, 1872, for expenses incurred prior to the 1st 
of July, 1871, $49,909.21, from which is deducted the sum of $13,460.14, 
the amount that could be properly applied for the payment of the ex- 
penses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, 



280 

Question. How much does that leave ? 

Answer. I think there is a dlfiterence of $130 between those tigni-es. 

Question. Won't you be liind enough to make the computation now ? 

Answer. The amount was .$3G,44:9.()7. 

Question. Where do you find those items in this printed exhibit ? 

Answer. It is in that subsequent letter of General Vincent's ; there is 
a diflerence of $134.30. 

Question. Where is that subsequent letter, you speak of, iu these 
exhibits ? 

Answer. It is on page 14. 

Question. Where do you find that first item of forty-nine thousand 
and odd dollars ? 

Answer. On page 14, under the heading of expenses incurred prior to 
July 1, 1871, statement 0. 

Question. Then you take from that the figures ou page 15, $13,460.14, 
making certain small corrections ? 

Answer'. Yes, sir. I would state that I did not get up these figures 
on page 3 ; I have no knowledge who did get them up ; there is a dis- 
crepancy of $134.30 ; it should be that much more. 

Question. Where in these exhibits do you get this item of $73,048.40 ? 

Answer. From statement B, page 14. The amount due officers, ac- 
cording to that statement, ou the li4th of March, 1871, was, $47,807.57, 
and on the 22d of July, $25,240.83, making an aggregate of $73,048.40. 

Question. From that sum should any part of this sum of $13,460.14 
on page 15 be deducted ? 

Answer. I am not prepared to state on that point without an exami- 
nation into the accounts, because there is an amount received there 
during July, 1871, of $8,419.21. I could not tell what date it was 
received. 

Question. As to this statement marked C, on page 14, do you know 
whether or not a part of these expenses are not reckoned in the abstracts 
under heading B ? 

Answer. I would state that all up to July — I think up to July 31 — 
the $37,000 is included in that ; they were paid within these state- 
ments. This is simi)l3' an analysis of the appropriations to which they 
are properly chargeable. 

Question. I want to know whether that $36,314.77 was paid under one 
of the items in statement B ? 

Answer. I think it can be verified by the statements, taking the 
amount disl)ursed. 

Question. Coming back to the first question — if that is the fact, is.it 
not true that this first item of $36,314.77 is included iu the other item of 
$73,048.40 f 

Answer. No, sir ; not in the sense you put the question : it is a 
separate charge. 

Question. Well, in any sense ? 

The witness requested tiaie to look it up, and, on motion, the court, 
at 3.40 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to-morrow morning at 11 o'clock. 



281 



TWENTY-SIXTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1S16 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, April 14, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and aujournnient. 

Fresent. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Geo. W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cayalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Adyocate U. S. A., judge-adyocate j 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O,' O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Geo. W. Dyer, 
esq., and H. D. Beam, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and ap- 
proyed. 

« 

Wm. H. Harrison, a former witness, then appeared, and his testi- 
mony of yesterday haymg been read to him, he said : 

There is a question which I answered in my cross-examination which 
I would like to correct. I find I w^as a little mistaken with reference to 
the original draughts of the papers. The question was asked me, and I 
said that it was all prepared by myself, with the exception of some few 
sheets prepared by Mr. Muzzy. I would like to add the name of Mr. 
Fry. I find, on examination of the original draughts, that he made some 
few sheets also. 

Cross-examination continued. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Question. Are you now prepared to answer the question asked you 
just before the adjournment last evening ? 

The Court, (by its president.) I understand the inquiry is as to 
whether the sum, $30,449.07, as testitied to by yourself, is or is not 
embraced in the other sum of $73,048.40. 

Answer. (By witness.) It is, to this extent: In making up the state- 
ments on pages 13, 14, and 15, the sum of $25,l280.lW of the amount 
claimed by the disbursing ofiticer as having been disbursed during the 
month of July was taken therefrom and added to the months of April 
and May ; $14,500.82 having been actually disbursed in April, and 
$5,779.40 having been disbursed in May, as shown by vouchers 51, 52, 
53, 55, and 57 for July, 1871. This amount, however, having been dis- 
bursed from some other fund and afterward charged to the appropria- 
tion for the support of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, for the fiscal year endiug June 30, 1872, was a misappli- 
cation of tbe aj)propriation, and therefore 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Wait a moment. Confine your- 
self to the fact; answer the question of fact. 
Answer. I was only stating why 



282 

Question. I did not ask yon \vb\'; I asl?ed you a fact, whether one 
sum was included in another. I want an answer to that fact. 

Answer. Well, sir, I stated before that $25,280.22 was included. 

Question. Then that would leave this sum, $73,048.40, if iiroperly 
stated — what sum ? Please make a computation. 

Answer. " If properly stated?'" I would like to understand what 
is meant. 

Question. You say that a certain sum, twenty-five thousand and odd 
dollars, is embraced twice in these two sums of $3(3,314.77 and of 
$73,048.40; and 1 undei stand you that that sum ought to be deducted 
from the sum of $73,048.40, rather than from the other sum of $36,314.77. 
If that is the fact, I wish you would make the computation and deduct 
one sum from the other, and state \vliat sum remains. 

Answer. From the $73,048.40 do I understand vou to take the 
$25,280.22 f 

Question. Whatever sum you mention ; twenty-five thousand and 
odd dollars. 

Answer. That would leave $47,768.18. 

Question. Now, from that amount just stated by you, what portion or 
part of this sum of $13,404.14, on page 15, should be deducted ? 

Answer. I do not know as I can tell. I am of opinion that the 
$73,048.40 is right, as well as the $36,349.07, which I was prepared to 
show when yon stopped me in the answer to the first question. 

Question. Then I have misunderstood you in saying that the sum of 
twenty-five thousand and odd dollars ought to be deducted from it ? 

Answer. No, sir ; in one sense the $25,280.22 should be deducted ; 
but in order to make up the analysis of the appropriation it should be 
used again. 

Question. I think I have a right to ask you to answer according to 
the fact, not according to a variety of senses. I wish to know the fact 
whether that sum you have named, of twenty-five thonsand and some 
odd dollars, should be deducted from that sum of $73,048.40? 

Answer. In reply to that I should state that it should. 

Question. Well, now you have already given the remainder, which 
was forty-seven thousand and odd dollars ; from that sum should €ny 
part or the whole of the sum of $13,460.14 on page 15 be deducted 
again ? 

Answer. I do not understand that it has any reference to those pay- 
ments included in the original sum of $73,048.40. 

Question. Do you say it ought not to be deducted ? 

Answer. I do not understand that that applies to it at all. It was 
included in my statement. 

Question. You say it ought not to be deducted ! 

Answer. The thirteen thousand ? 

Question. Ought any part of it f 

Answer. I do not think it should be. 

Question. You think it ought not to be ? 

Answer. I think it ought not to be deducted. 

Question. Does it not appear as money on hand which was a proper 
credit to this balance of forty-seven thousand and odd dollars, or a fund 
from which that might be paid in part ? 

Answer. According to my understanding of it these sums were re- 
ceived after the payments alluded to enumerated in the sum as now re- 
duced to $47,668.18. It was received after that amount disbursed. 

Question. Do you get that information from this book andexhibits 1 
(showing witness House document No. 14, Exhibit B.) 



1 



283 

Answer. Partiallj- from tliat aud partially from my recollectiou. I 
wonld not state positively without a tborongh re-examination of the 
whole matter, whether or not any part of this $3,460.14 was included, 
but my impression is that it was by the statement printed upon page 15, 

Question. Should not a[)parently the first and second items there be 
deducted from this balance you have given us ? 

Answer. Possibly, sir; the $L*,G84.08 might be, but I am not so sure 
as to the other amount without having ascertained the exact date of 
the receipt. 

Question. Let me call your attention to the first item under paragraph 
"Con page 14, which says: July, 1871, $37,(196.42 ; and the second 
item on page 15, " amount received during July, 1871, $8,419.21.'*' IS^ow, 
would it not be the practice in making disbursements to render an ac- 
count of them at the end of the month ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Well, then, apparently, from these exhibits, should not the 
sum of $8,419.21, ou page 15, also be deducted ; the second item 1 

Answer, I should think not. It was not received, according to the 
statements A and B, until the 22d July. 

Question. But you have just testified that the accounts are ordinarily 
made up on the last of July ; and the 22d is certainly before the last of 

July- 
Answer. The accounts are made up, but the disbursements may be 
made from day to day. 

Question. I ask you these questions because you have been introduced 
as an expert in accounts. These accounts on page 14, marked B and 0, 
were they made up by you. 

Answer. The tabular statements ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Yes, sir, they were. 

Question. These were made up as an expert also, were they — made up 
according to your best skill and judgment? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I see a heading to statement B. Was that heading made 
by you 1 It is as follows : " Disbursements as they should have been 
stated," on the top of page 14, Exhibit B. 

Answer. I think, sir, that that heading was prepared by Mr. Moody. 

Question. But the account proper was prepared by you ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. It ai)pears by that account that if a disbursing officer had 
no money on hand he is bound to pay bills which are rendered with his 
own money. Is that a correct statement? 

Answer. 1 do not understand that he is bound to do it. 

Question. I understood you that this account is made up as it shou 
have been stated, " by amount due officer, $47,807.57." It appears from 
this account that the officer had no money, and it appears also from this 
account that the officer has advanced his own money to the amount of 
$47,807.57, second item ou the printed side. 

Answer. 1 did not state — I did not intend to convey that meaning, 
that he is bound to do this ; but I do say that if he paid it, that would 
be the effect ; it would be due him. 

Question. That amount would be due him? 

Answer. He would have advanced that amount. 

Question. In order to have the account as it should be stilted he ought 
to advance that amount ? 



284 

Answer. Properly, iu order to have paid these vouchers that he claims 
to have paid. 

Questiou. Then, at the endof Julv, 1871, according to his statement, 
there would be $25,280.43 advanced^ by the officer? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(Question. I suppose it would make no difi'ereuce whether the sum was 
$200,000 instead of $20,000 in the principle. 

Answer. I should think not. 

Questiou. Suppose the officer had not the money f 

Answer. He could not have paid them if he did not have the money. 

Question. When you went over to the Third Auditor's Office to ex- 
amine these accounts, what instructions did you go with ? 

Answer. I think I stated yesterday I had a letter from General Vin- 
cent, authorizing me to make an examination. 

Question. Yes, you have stated you had a letter to the Third Auditor, 
but what instructions did you have ? 

Answer. I had instructions to make out an abstract of all the pay- 
ments, showing the date of payment as claimed by a disbursing officer, 
the nanie of the person to whom the money was paid, on what account, 
what period of service or amount, as well as any other data on the 
vouchers showing the actual date of his payment. 

Question. Whose accounts were you instructed to look over in that 
way? 

Answer. 1 think I was instructed to look over the accounts covering 
the time from January 1, 1871, to June 30, 1872, which included the 
disbursements made by General George W. Balloch, General O. O. 
Howard, and Maj. J. M. Brown. 

Question. And that was simply what you did ; prepared that state- 
ment ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; that is, in connection with this tabular statement 
from them. 

Questiou. Did you have auy instructions to look for errors particu- 
larly "? 

Answer. What kind of errors ? 

Question. I do not know. 

Answer. I was instructed, as I said before, iu making out the abstract, 
to make them up in the way 1 have just stated, and after that 

Question. No, you misunderstand me. In making this examination 
in the Third Auditor's Office, in which you prepared an abstract of all 
the payments, were you instructed to look particularly for errors? 

Answer. I do not recollect of being so instructed. 

Question. What assistance did you receive from Moody besides his 
supervision and supplying the headings to this account, as it ought to 
have been stated 1 

Answer. I do not think I received any, only general directions — super- 
vision. 

Question. Who selected these particular items out of all those 
accounts ? 

Answer. Which particular items do you refer to? 

Question. Those that are stated in the analysis here. 

Answer. Who selected those different items ? 

Question. Yes. 

The Pkesident of the Court. Which analysis? 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) He speaks of them as analyses, 
both B and C, although C is only printed. 



285 

Answer. (The witness.) I selected them myself in cases where I had 
doubt, and 1 asked the opinion of Mr. Moody on those points. 

Question. Did you have any other assistance in the matter"? 

Answer. Not to my recollection. 

Question. Or any other instructions from any other person? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. After these papers were brought over to the War Depart- 
ment, having- been borrowed from the Third Auditor, where were they 
kept in the War Department? 

Answer. Kept in what is known as the Freedmen's Branch of the 
Adjutant-General's Office. 

Question. In Mr. Moody's room ? 

Answer. They were on my desk. 

Question. In his room f 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. In some other room? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examination ended. 

Re-direct examination. 

By the Judcie Advocate : 

Question. You have been asked about this $30,314.77 on top of page 
3, Exhibit B, marked " misapplication." Please explain, in your own 
language, exactly what that sum is intended to represent. 

Answer. Intended to represent, to show the amount expended from 
the appropriation for the support of the Bureau of Refugees, Freednjen 
and Abandoned Lands for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, expended 
for expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871. 

Question. How do you connect it with reference to this sum, right 
underneath here, of $73,018.10 ? You say in one sense it is part of 
that amount, in another sense it is not. Explain to the court what 
you mean by that remark. 

Answer. I would state, sir, that it was used, in making up the state- 
ment showing the $73,018.10, to show the payments charged in the 
disbursements for July that were actually disbursed in April and May. 

Question. Do yon know, or could you determine from the papers 
before you from the Third Auditor's Office, in any way, from what fund 
that $30,311.77 was disbursed ? 

Answer. No, sir. Oh ! from what fimd it was disbursed ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It was disbursed from the appropriation for the support of 
the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1872. 

Question. How did you arrive at that determination ? 

Answer. By this analysis ? 

Question. Which one? 

Answer. Analysis C ~ * 

Question. Now, just describe what that analysis is intended to repre- 
sent, for the information of the court. 

Answer. All the vouchers are examined, and those that were for 
services rendered or expenses incurred prior to the 1st of July, 1871, 
were put under a separate heading. 

By the Court : 
Question. What heading is that ? 

Answer. "Expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871 ;" those that were 
decided by myself, and, in case of doubt, on consultation with Mr. 



286 

Moody ; ''for medical," were passed uader that heading, "for medical" 
lor the year ending 1872 ; those " for the collection and payment of 
bonnty " for 1872 were put under that head, and it was arrived at in that 
manner. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Do you speak of expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871 "? 
What class of expenses were those ; what description of items were 
those I 

Answer. Including all kiud of items, so far as my recollection serves 
me, both the medical appropriation and the collection and ijayment of 
bounties. 

Question. Then that first column, entitled "expenses incurred prior to 
July 1, 1871," was composed of all expenses for which payments were 
made, no matter to what it referred, by the Bureau })rior to July 1? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Now, the second column, medical, 1872; between what 
periods were those services rendered for which those charges were 
made? Have you any recollection? 

Answer. I should think, being put under that heading, that they were 
incurred during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872; that is, from the 
30th June, 1871, to the 30th June, 1872. 

Question. Next, the heading, collection and payment of bounty, 1872; 
what description of expenses were those that were put under that 
heading! 

Answer. Salaries of agents, I think, postage and transportation, and 
other miscellaneous exjjenses. 

Question. Incurred between what periods? 

Answer. Incurred between the same periods as I stated the medical 
are incurred. 

Question. Between July 1, 1871, and June 30, 1872 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. With reference to that column, going back ro it — "expenses 
incurred prior to July 1, 1871 " — you said there was some doubt in your 
mind as to what column a particular voucher should be put under in 
the enumeration. Explain what description of doubt it was, and what 
you referred to. 

Answer. I do not recollect that there was any doubt in my mind as 
to that first column, I do not recollect saying any such thing. 

Question. Then I misunderstood you. What did you refer to? 

Answer. To the other two columns. It was a question whether it 
should be put under the head of " medical for 1872" or " collection and 
payment of bounties for 1872." 

Question, Explain to the court now what that first tabular statement 
there means — statement A on page 13, Exhibit B. 

Answer. It is a statement made up from the cash-books on file in the 
Freedmen's J3ranch, Adjutant-General's Office, showing the accounts as 
rendered to the Treasury by the disbursing officers or disbursing officer. 
I think there was only one during this period. 

(Question. And the second statement, B, next page; what was that 
statement made up from ? 

Answer. Made up from the ab,^tracts that I prepared in connection 
with Mr. Muzzey and Mr. Fry from the vouchers themselves. 

Question. That, then, refers more particularly to the tabulated list 
which you presented here ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; that list shows the vouchers as they were rendered, 



287 

and ill the column of remarks the actnal date of payments as shown by 
the checks or the remarks on the vonclier paid in cnrreucy. 

Question. What does that statement D refer to'] 

Answer. This statement D is made up from the records of the late 
Freedmen's Bnrean, showing the receipts from July 1, 1871, to June 30, 
1872. 

Question. What was it made up from ? 

Answer. What items? 

Qnestion. Yes, the anionnts. If you made it up what did yon nse as 
the basis ot the enumeration ? 

Answer. The cash-book of the disbnrsiug officer, or the cash-books; 
I think there were three of them. 

Question. In the same way with reference to that statement E, follow- 
ing on page 15. 

Answer. Tlu\v were selected from the statement D to show what 
might properly be used for the expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871. 

By the Court : 

Question. What do you call the legal or actual date of the payment of a 
voucher, viz, the date of the check, the date of its mailing, (when sent 
by mail,) when received bj' the payee, or the date when the check was 
paid by the depositary, or the date of actual receipt by the disbursing 
ofticer, of the returned receipted voucher, referring to your tabular 
statement which now forms a part of our record? 

Answer. I would say that the date the check was drawn in payment 
of the voucher would be the actunl date of payment, as it is the cus- 
tom to always receipt a voucher before it is paid ; an officer claims 
credit for the disbursement in most all cases as soon as he draws the 
che<jk. 

Question. Who gave you your instruction, that you have referred to, 
to make the examination of the vouchers'? 

Answer. JVIy impression is that Mr. Moody did. 

Question. Who is Mr. Moody ? 

Answer. Chief clerk of the Freedmen's Branch, Adjutant-GeneraPs 
Office. 

Question. Wiien did you receive the vouchers from the Third Audi- 
tor's Office, Treasury Department ? 

Answer. I cannot answer that (piestion definitely, as to dates, not 
having examined into the matter. 

Question. About? 

Answer. x\s I stated in my testimony yesterday, it was somewhere 
between the 1st of July aud the 1st of November, 1873. 

Question. That is a wi<le gap ; cannot you till it u[), explain it a lit- 
tle better "! 

Answer. I can by reference to General Vincent's letter, dated the 
same day. 

Question. How long were these vouchers in your possession ? 

Answer. The custom was to get the papers for one month at a time, 
and as soon as I had finished making these abstracts I would return 
them and receive another month, and I could not state how long I had 
each month's i)apers. 

Question. That custom did not refer to any particular month ? 

Answer. No. sir. 

Question. It referred to the whole number of months ; all the papers 
that you examined ? 



• 288 

Answer. I could not state, except by giving those dates — those out 
side dates. 

Question. Were the vouchers in your possession from July to No- 
vember ? 

Answer. I think not ; not all the time. I could not state how long 
they were in my possession. 

Question. You could state somewhere near it, could you not "? 

Answer. I cannot state any more definitely than I previously stated ; 
that is from the 1st of July, 1873, to the 1st of November, 1873, not 
having made any memorandum of the transaction. 

Question. Am I right in supposing that the item of •$36,449.07 as testi- 
fied to by you, on the toj) of page 3, was used twice in this statement: 
first, to show misapplication of funds ; second, as covered by part of the 
vouchers used to make up the next item of 873,048.40 f 

Answer. Twenty five thousand two hundred and eighty dollars and 
twenty-two cents; that was used twice. 

Question. If the two items on the top of page 3 were stopped against 
the disbursing officer, should not this $25,280.22 be deducted as being 
embraced in the second item ? 

Answer. I do not think that the $73,048.40 would be stopped at all, 
against the officer, having been repaid by the appropriation, deficiency 
approi)riation, bat the whole amount of the first item would be stopped 
against the officer. .^ 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Yon say that the sum of $73,048.40 was re-imbursed from 
the deficiency appropriation of $127,000; then how does the $30,314.77 
become a separate item of the account, a separate affair, if it was all 
re-imbursed out of the deficiency appropriation f How does it become a 
new charge '? 

Answer. Upon further examination into this, I think that $25,280.22 
should be deducted from the $73,048.40, and the remainder would not 
have been stopped against the disbursing officer, having been provided 
for in the deficiency appropriation. 

Question. Explain exactly now the difference between $73,048.40 and 
the thirty-six thousand and odd dollars. Was the $3G,000 made a double 
charge in this way ? Was it first — the voucheis having been rendered by 
the disbursing officer before June 30, 1872, and having been paid by him 
out of some fund or other — were those vouchers first re-imbursed out of 
the deficiency appropriation and then afterward the amounts trans- 
ferred to the appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872? 

Answer. I do not understand it in that way; $25,280.22 of this 
$30,449.07 was paid from some other fund in the first place, and after- 
ward taken from the appropriation for 1872, for the support of the 
Bureau. 

Question. You just said it was first paid from the deficiency appro- 
priation bill ; what do you mean by that? 

Answer. Not that thirty-six thousand, I did not; I understood the 
$73,048.40. 

Question. Then, as I understand you, the $36,314.77 may first have 
been paid out of the deficiency appropriation, but afterward the defi- 
ciency appropriation re-imbursed out of the appropriation for the support 
of the Bureau, for the year ending June 30, 1872. 

Answer. I stated that a portion of it was paid from some other fund ; 
I cannot state what fund. 

Bythe Oourt : 

Question. Were those accounts-current and vouchers, about which 



289 

you have been testifying, audited and passed by tlie regular accounting 
officers of the Treasury ? 

Answer. So far as I can ascertain, sir, they were. 

Question. How did you come to state that the $36,000 item ought to 
have been stopped against the disbursing agent of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau, and the other of seventy-three thousand odd dollars not! 

Answer. Erom the fact that the law passed sometime in July, 1870, 
forbade the use of appropriations for one year for that of another ; and 
why the $73,048.40 should not be charged against the disbursing officer 
was that it was reimbursed by other funds appropriated. The defi- 
ciency bill, I think, was a deficiency for that year, and for previous 
years. 

Question. Do I understand you to be an officer, or rather a clerk, in 
the Treasury Department or the War Department ? 

Answer. I am clerk in the War Department. 

Question. Did you find in the books or records of the Third Auditor's 
Office any entry which authorized you to use in statement B, page 14, 
tlie phrase " by amount due officer f 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. Do you mean accounting officer, or the officer to whom the 
money was due ! 

Answer. I had reference to General Balloch. 

Question. Did you find anything there to warrant the use of the 
phrase, " by amount received on draft Xo. 818, war-warrant i^o. GIO?" 

Answer. In the Third Auditor's Office "? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. IS^o, sir ; I obtained that information from the cash-book of 
the late Bureau, or cash-books. 

Question. Who made the heading — the heading to statement E, 
page 15 ! 

Answer. I think John S. Moody made that also ; I am not sure. 

Question. Did you prepare statement E, page 15 ? 

Answer. I did, under the direction of Mr. Moody 

Question. Did you have any idea, while preparing this statement, 
under what heading it would or should appear ? 

Answer. Not to my recollection, sir. 

Question. Did you then have any definite idea of the purpose for 
which items comprising statement E were compiled ? 

Answer. For which they were to be used ? 

The JuDaE-ADYOCATE. Yes, sir. 

Answer. JSTo, sir. 

By the Court : 

(Question. How did you come to prepare statement E ! 

Answer. By direction of Mr. Moody, the chief clerk. 

Question. Where did you find data from which to prepare this state- 
ment E ? 

Answer. In the cash-books of the late Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Can you swear positively that these payments were made 
from the wrong appropriation and then reimbursed from another, or is 
that your inference ? 

Answer. Payments prior to the 1st of July, 1871, the 130,000 you are 
speaking off 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. That is my inference ; I could not swear positively. 
19 HC 



29U 



Thomas .M. Siiioi'IIImm) then appcan'd hiilbrc tlu; (;ouit, aii<l, liiiviiif; 
lirsl, Ih'<mi <1iiI.v swoiii in Ihc prcsciKH; ol' tiu! juMMiscd, was exainiiuMl as 
lollows : 

I5y tlic. .IiiixiK-ADVOdA'i'K : 

(Question. IMciiso, slate yoiii' full nairu", occiiiiatioii, and rcsidiMKjo. 

Ansvv<i'. 'l'lM»ni;is M. Slicplicrd ; plninhiii;; and ^ms littinj*' ; Wash- 
ington. 

<k)U((sti<)n. VVliat (irin nw. yoii {•a)1\\h'a;U'a\ with ? 

Answer. Alexan<lei' Iv. Shei»lierd iS:, (^o. now. 

(Question. Ai'e .yon onc^ of tliat liiin now '^ 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

((Jnestion. lleJoic i\w, (iiin h:i(l tin- name of Ah'xander li. Shepherd «S: 
Oo., had it any otiiei- lirni-n:inie / 

Answ<M'. Ah'xan<h'r If. Shepherd iV llios. 

(^)Mestion. Do .yon l<now whether at any time iJie firm of Alexandei' It. 
Sliepiierd iV IJros., or' Ms snecessor Ah'xainh'r It. Sin-pherd »S: (Jo., (;ver 
h:id any trnnsaet ions wilh IJMi llowitrd University ol tliis city with ref- 
erence to hent in^ appnintiis '^ 

AnswiM'. \'es, sir. 

(|)iiestion. Will yon ph-ase stiitc what, Ihat lransa(!tion was; when 
pii,>inent w;is niinU', if at all, ;ind how '^ 

Answ<-r'. V\'<'- took Iheconlraet foi' heal in;;' I he Howard University for 
the, snni of $l(;,(;r)L'.L'r). 

(Jlnesliorr. Where was tlrnt healing;' app;iralirs prit irr 1? 

Airswer\ Attire Howard Univinsily r»iiildiir,<;s — Chirk Hall. 

(^Jriestion. Have yorr any reeolhuilion wheir yoir rendered yoiu' bill for 
that amount, arrd to whom it was rendcM'ed 1 

Airswer-. The, bill was r-endere<l to the — (ieireral nalloeh paid the bill. 
]t was j-iveri to (leneral l5iilloeh, I sirppose. 

(^)iiestion. What was the name of llie liiin at the linrc^ of that tr'arrs- 
a<'li(ni '{ 

Answer'. Alexarnler- It. Shepher'd nnd Jlros. 

(^)nestiorr. Were yotr orreof that lirm ' 

Answer'. Yes, sir. 

(^)iU'sliori. How many I lansaclions of that rnrtnre has yonr' lirirr had 
with tln^ Howard Uni\«'rsity !f 

Answer'. Ordy oik*. 

(Jlirestion. rie;is<', st;rte if tliat aeeoirrri, .*l<>,(ir»2.*Ji'», was jtiiitl. 

Answer'. Paid id. <lifler'errtj times. 1 have <;()t her'c a, rruMirorarrdnm of 
t,he ditfer'(Mrt times. 

<i)neslion. IMense state?. 

Answer'. Aii;;irst 27, 1870, -f-VMR) oir aeeorrnt; September 12, 1870, 
.$r),()()(l on iiceoriid, ; Septenrber' 20, 1.S70, $1,000 on aeeorint; November 
22, IS70, $1,500 on aeeonrd ; rlariirary II, IS7I, $1,152.25, the balarree. 

(^>iiesliori. Whiil oilier' Slims ha\'e yoir li'c.'ived, if any, irr payrrriMit of 
th:it< aceoirnt^ ''i 

Answer'. No other' srims. 

(Jjrresliorr. Mow were, those? se\ei':il snb paymerrts made, by check or in 
cniri^ney '! 

Answer'. Ily check. 

(>),iresti()ir. Drawn by whom '? 

Answer'. Dr'iiwrr by (ierrer'al llalloch. 

(>)iiestion. On wlnil elepiisitory i? 

.Answer'. ( >ii tli<' Ti'ciisnr'er'. 



I 291 

Question. WIkmi yon were paid those several sums; did yon give any 
vouchers therefor ? 

Answer. A receipted voucher ? Yes, sir. 

(^Juestion. Can you state if you liave ever seen that document before 
or not 1 [Ifanding paper to witness.] 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Wiiat is that document you have in your hand ? 

Answer. It is the amount of estimate lor the steam-heating of Howard 
University. 

Question. About wliicli you have beeu testifying ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(Question. l>y whom is the receipt signed ? 

Answer. IJy myself. 

(j)uestion. It says, " signed in duplicate." I now hand you another 
paper; can yon stale what that is ? 

vVnswer. That is tiie same thing; a dui)licate of the other. 

Question. Is this also signed by yourself? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(Question. I notice that one of these receipts snys : " Received at Wash- 
ington, I). C, from r>vt. JJrig. (leu. (leorge W. Balloch, chief disbursing 
olhcer, .*U >,()."> LM*r», in full of the above account by checks ;" and then 
the numbers of the checks are mentioned, ami dates are also given at 
the bottom of the lirst voucher handed you. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. The second receipt says: "Iteceived at Washington, D. C, 
this 24th day of March, 1871, froni livt. T.rig. (Jen. George W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing ollicer, the sum of *I(!,(),'>L*.L'r), in full of the above ac- 
count ;'' and that is marked, "i)ai(l in currency," <lated January 18, 1871. 
Will you please exi)lain iiow that discrei)ancy appears to have arisen '? 

Answer. Well, I don't know as I can explain tliat. 

Question. When you signed those recei[)ts, do you recollect wliether 
they were tilled in, or whether yon signed them in blank? 

Answer. I cannot remember that either. I think, if I remember 
rightly. General Ualloch came to the store one day ami had a voucher 
signed. 

(Question. A triplicate? 

Answer. A triplicate, which I signed. Inserted that in the })lace of 
one of the vouchers; or lu^ wanted it to i)ut in with his vouchers, one 
of them being misi)laced, or something of the kind. It was just the 
amount of the other; it might have been one of those. I (cannot tell. 

By the Court: 
(Question. Is that marked triplicate or duplicate? 
Answer. Dui)licate, sir. 

The Judge- Advocate: 

Question. You rendered those vouchers, do I understand you, to 
General Balloch for payment ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I suppose they were rendered to General Howard, 
and referred to (ieneral Balloch; General Balloch paid them. 

(Question. Do you recollect with any i)ositiveness exactly in Avliat 
description of funds or checks you were paid when you wen^ paid? 

Answer. I do m)t. I could not state positively regarding that. We 
might have been paid in currency, for all I remember. I suppose, 
though, probably we were paid in checks. I cannot remember about 
that, though. 



292 

Question. Can you remember whether any part of it was paid in 
checks ? 

Answer. I cannot. I would not like to state positively, because I 
cannot remember. 

Question. The dates that you have given of the payment were taken 
from what source ? 

Answer. Taken from our books. 

Question. Do you know whether they are correct or not ? 

Answer. Yes, sii'. 

The judge-advocate offered the two vouchers in evidence, and they 
were read to the court. They are attached to the record, marked 
Exhibits W' and E'^, respectively, there being no objection on the part 
of the accused. 

Cross-exam ination . 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Was any part of this business done with General Howard 
directly? 

Answer. In what way " directly'' with General Howard ? I suppose 

Question. In any way; by you, or to your knowledge. 

Answer. Well, he being the officer in charge of the University, I sup- 
pose all the accounts would have to receive his authority for payment, 
before they were paid by General Balloch. 

Question. I do not thiuk you understand the import of the question. 

Answer. In no other way. 

Question. I mean that you had direct intercourse with General How- 
ard personally in this matter? 

Answer. Xo, sir. 

The Judge- Advocate. I have to inform the court that there are 
certain documents in possession of Mr. Cauld well, official records brought 
on a subpa?na duces tecum ^ which I desire here in order to examine the 
Second Comptroller, and for that purpose I would like to have Mr. 
Cauldwell present with such records. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) We have not the slightest ob- 
jection. 

Hon. J. M. BRODHEA.D, a former witness, was then recalled, and in the 
presence of the accused, was examined as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Has your attention ever been directed to the act of March 2, 
18G7, on the subject of the irregular retained bounty-fund ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know in whose custody that fund was, after the 
passage of that act ? 

Answer. In the custody of the Freedmen's Bureau, and General 
Balloch at the head of it. 

Question. General Balloch, or General Howard? 

Answer. General Howard, I should say. 

Question. Do you know whether any vouchers were ever rendered to 
the Treasury, either to the Second or Third Auditor's Office, by General 
Howard, or by any one acting under him, with reference to that irregular 
retained bounty-fund ? 

Answer. Y'es, sir. 

Question. Please state. 

Answer. There were some vouchers rendered at the Second Auditor's. 
I do not know that I saw the vouchers ; perhaps I ought not to speak so 



293 

positively, but I bad repeated conversations in re^^ard to it, and the 
question came before me whether they shoukl be included in the money 
accounts accountings for money drawn from the Treasury. I said to 
General Balloch, and I believe to General Howard, certainly did to Gen- 
eral Balloch, that they could not be included, and ought not to be included ; 
that that was an entirely separate fund ; never was in the Treasury 
of the United States ; belonged to private individuals, and Congress, for 
a good purpose, had seen lit to make a custodian, a trustee, of the Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and all he had to do was prescribed 
by statute. That was, he should find the parties as tar as he could, 
invest the funds in United States bonds, such as remained on hand, and 
finally render his account to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and turn over any funds that might remain in his hands at 
the end of his trusteeship. 

Question. Did you say you knew there were vouchers rendered 
t3 the Treasury ? 

Answer. I am not certain whether 1 saw them or not; but I know I 
had a conversation with Mr. French, the Second Auditor, and the ques- 
tion of those vouchers came up and he mentioned that vouchers had 
been presented, were offered to be presented, and 1 indicated what should 
be done in the way I have mentioned. 

Question. With reference to the rendition of those vouchers, do you 
recollect whether you made any decision or not to the effect that those 
vouchers should be withdrawn 1 

Answer. I do not think I did. I do not think I said anything about any 
withdrawal, but merely said that they ought not to be presented in the 
money-accounts, accounting for money drawn from the Treasury under 
appropriations made by Congress. 

Question. That act of March 2, 18G7, referring to General Howard or 
his successor iu office, what was your construction upon that phrase, 
as Second Comptroller t 

Answer. Well, I should construe it as applying to the man who su- 
perseded General Howard as head of the Freedmen's Bureau as Commis- 
sioner. 

Question. Under the act approved June 10, 1872, transferring the 
Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands to the War 
Department, has your attention been called, in any wise, to that act in 
reference to determining who was the successor of the late Commis- 
sioner, General Howard ? 

Answer. Yes; but as it was not a question for me to decide, I did 
not undertake to decide it. 

Question. The question then did come before you officially ? 

Answer. No, sir ; merely by way of conversation. 

Question. Do you know whether or not General Howard rendered 
any accounts or returns to the Treasury for anj^ portion of that irreg- 
ular bounty-fund ? 

Answer. I only know from statements made to me by General How- 
ard himself. 

Question. Do you know whether or not you directed the withdrawal 
of any vouchers that may have been rendered with reference to this ir- 
regular bounty-fund I 

Answer. I do not think I gave any directions as to the withdrawal. 
I do not recollect if I did ; I may possibly have done so, but I do not 
recollect it now. Perhaps I ought to explain that I have no doubt that 
I did direct, where they were rendered iu accounts confounded with 
money that was drawn from the Treasury, that I directed them to be 



294 

drawn out of tliat account. (3f course I should not have cared if tbey 
bad remained in the Treasury as long as they pleased, if they were not 
mixed up with moneys drawn from tlie Treasury. 

Question. When did you decide that an accounting should be made of 
that fuud ? 

Answer. At the end of the trusteeship. 

Question. Please refer to the act ap[)roved March 3, 1871, vol. 16, 
Statutes at Large p. 506, making appro])riations for the support of the 
Bureau of Refngees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and state whether 
or not the appropriation there made is a specific ap[)ropriation. 

Answer. 1 should consider it so, sir. 

Question. Please look at a voucher now banded to you and state 
whether or not, in your judgment, as Second Com[)troller, that voucher 
is a voucher properly payable out of the approi)riation made for the tiscal 
year ending June 30, 1872, to which your attention has just been callecL 

Answer. This for the fiscal year beginning the 1st of July, 1871 ? 

Qnestion. Yes. 

Answer. From the date of the iirst item I should say that that cer- 
tainly should be paid out of the appropriation for the previous year. 
The heading is January 19, 1871, for the whole, but it purports to have 
been paid on the 25th day of July, 1871. 

Question. AYhat voucher is it ? 

Answer. H. M. Tupper. 

Question. Please refer to voucher Xo. 52 now handed you aud tell 
whether or not, in your judgment as Second Comi)troller, that voucher 
was properly payable fiom the appropriation for the tiscal year ending 
June 30, 1872, under the act to which your attention has been called. 

Answer. From the date of this I should say it ought to have been out 
of the previous year ; it is dated the 7th of April, 1871. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. That is also a voucher in the name of E. L. Ta.ylor. Please 
look at the voucher now handed you, No. 53, and tell whether or not, 
in your judgment as Second Comptroller, that voucher was properly 
l)ayable from the appropriation for the support of the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1872, to which your attention has just been asked. 

Answer. 1 make the same remark, that it would be ])roperly payable, 
I think, out of the appropriation for the previous vear. It is dated the 
25th of April, 1871. 

Question. Please refer now to vouchers 55, 57, 64, 68, now handed you, 
and say whether, in your judgment as Second (yomptroller, those 
vouchers were properly payable out of the appropriation for the Freed- 
men's Bureau for the tiscal year ending June 30, 1872, to which your 
attention has just been directed? 

Answer. I should make the same answer; that they appear properly 
payable out of the ai)propriation for the previous jears. I see one of 
these is for 1870 and the other for 1871. 

Question. Do you know whether the Third Auditor is required to have 
a record in his oflice classified by ai^propriations of money paid on war- 
rants in favor of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lauds ? 

Answer. He keeps an appropriation account ; there is an appropriation 
account opened under the direction of tlie Secretary of the Treasury. 
He sends an order to the Auditors and Comptrollers, aud the books are 
opened in conformity with that 



295 

The Judge- Advocate. I will put these vouchers in evidence, to 
which Mr. Brodhead's atteution has Just been called, as soon as I prove 
them bv Mr. Cauldwell, who brought them here from the tiles of the 
Third Auditor's Office. ^ 

Cross-examination, by the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Is this act of March, 1871, making an appropriation, to be 
construed in connection with the act of June 15, 1860 f 

Answer. Well, I do not know as it has any necessary connection with 
that; that was only provided that certain moneys that were in the hands 
of disbursing officers scattered over some portions of the United States 
should be paid into the Treasury and become api)licable to the objects 
of the Freedmen's Bureau — the same as any other money in the Treas- 
ury. 

(Question. Is there anything in the language of the second section to 
contine it to those spe(;ilic funds ? 

Answer. Well, that refers, I suppose, to the existing appropriation. It 
says, "that when accounts are rendered for expenditures for refugees or 
freedmen, under the approval and sanction of the proper officers, which 
shall have been proper and necessary, but cannot be settled for want of 
specific appropriations, the same may be paid out of the fund for the relief of 
refugees and freedmen, on the approval of the Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Kefugees and Freedmen."' Any existing fund, any that existed at that 
time, could certainly be paid out of that. It is an act which confines the 
appropriations of each year to that j^ear's expenditure ; it was passed on 
the 12th of July, I think, 1870, subsequent to this; I think it is the 12th of 
July — the appropriation act; it was introduced by the brother of the 
president of the court, that law was. 

Question. At what time did this actof the 12th of July, 1870, actually 
come into use in the Treasury Department in the settlement of ac- 
counts? 

Answer, It came into operation on the first of the succeeding fiscal 
year ; that was on the 1st of July with one exception, or with some ex- 
ceptions. 

It was found, of course, impossible in the trausactions that were 
already passed, to distinguish the different years. It was utterly impos- 
sible: we would have had to go over thousands of accounts to have 
ascertained and umde the proper discrimination between different years. 
The Secretary of the Treasury, therefore, directed that all balances up to 
the 1st of July, 1870, should be considered as applicable to any outstand- 
ing liabilities, and the accounts were rendered in that way, payable out 
of the appropriations prior to the 1st of July, 1870. In regard to sub- 
sequent expenditures, the act went into eftect from the 12th of July, 1870 ; 
went into operation. 

By the Court : 

Question. 1871? 

Answer. isTo, sir; I think it did not pass till the 12th. [Book handed 
witness.] That was another embarrassment. ] remember now, seeing 
the date here, that was another embarrassment, because we had gone on 
and settled and drawn money, and acted the same as if that law had 
not passed at all up to the 12th of July. 

Question, It was the next year? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I remember now, iu consequence of that, as we had 
gone on and got beyond the time, we postponed it to the end of the cal- 
endar year in regard to quartermasters' accounts. 

Question. Can you give the date? 



296 

Answer. December 1, 1871. It is Lere, [alluding to the book which 
had been handed him.] 

Question. That is 1871 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; that is 1871. Al^ell, it must have gone into effect 
before December, 1871. I do not remember about the approval. There 
was a good deal of embarrassment in getting things adjusted under 
this new regulation. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Do you wish to correct your answer and put December 1, 
1871? 

Answer. I do not answer from recollection in regard to that ; I have 
no doubt it is all correct, but I really do not remember it. 

Question. When was this law first promulgated by the War Depart- 
ment f 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. To your knowledge ? 

Answer. I don't know. I know they sent it out in General Orders, but 
I do not recollect the date. The War Department was in the habit of 
printing all laws that affected the War Department immediately after 
they passed, and they uniformly, I believe, sent me a copy, or a copy to 
the ofdce. 

Question. When did that law go into general use in the Treasury 
Department ? 

Answer. Well, sir, it went into general use, so far as charging up ex- 
penditures to the certain appropriations were concerned, on the first of 
the fiscal year. We found it sometimes impossible to do that ; we had 
to get along the best way we could. 

By the Court : 

Question. What fiscal year? 

Answer. 1870. The law was passed the 12th of July, 1870, and, of 
course, there were a great many things it was impossible to settle in 
conformity with that law. 

Question. The answer means, the fiscal year beginning the 1st of July^ 
1870 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. But with regard to some accounts it began a year later T 

Answer. Well, they were ordered to present their accounts in a par- 
ticular form ; it does not necessarily follow because the forms of the 
<iuarter masters are altered that when they arrive at the Treasury that 
the expenditures were not charged up under the proper appropriations. 

Question. What, if anything, Avas the injury to the public of paying 
the particular vouchers you have testified about, at the time they were 
X)aid ? 

Answer. I do not conceive that there was any injury to the public 
whatever. It is an expenditure of money for which the United States 
was responsible, and had to pay, of course. So far as any material in- 
jury was concerned, it was a matter of no importance. The only thing 
that we regarded was the obligation to law, of course, applicable to it. 

Question. But that very application, as I understand you, of law^ 
was extended by the act of the Secretary f 

Answer. Well, necessarily, in regard to some things it had to be done 
necessarily. A disbursing oflicer of course could not be expected to 
conform to a law he never heard of. He might not get any information 



297 

in regard to it for many months — some of those who were on the fron- 
tiers, for instance. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. I shoukl like to ask Mr. Brodhead whether this appropria- 
tion for the Freedmen's Bureau for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, 
(on page 500, 16 Statutes,) was, in his judgment, as Second Comptroller, 
a permanent or indefinite appropriation i 

Answer. IS^o, sir ; it would not come under that head, within the mean- 
ing of the law of 1870. 

By the Court : 

Question. Does, or not, the act of March 2, 1867, rcipiire General 
Howard, trustee, to account to the Treasury for any part of the irregu- 
lar bounty-fund, except the balance left in his hands when his trustee- 
ship terminated ! 

Answer. It certainly does not, in my judgment. 

Question. Was there, in fact, any successor to General Howard as 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau and trustee of the irregular 
bounty-fund 'I 

Answer. jS^ot to my knowledge, unless the Secretary of War should be 
so considered. 

Question. Was not the Freedmen's Bureau discontinued by the act 
approved June 10, 1872, so that there could not have been any successor 
to the office which was abolished ! 

Answer. The act of 1872 did not wholly repeal all the laws, but men- 
tioned certain laws that should be retained in full force. 

Question. That spoke of the Commissioner * 

Answer. I say the office of Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 
that was abolished. Yes, sir. The Bureau of Refugee.*, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands was discontinued after the 30th of June, 1872, and all 
acts and parts of the act pertaining to the collection and payment of 
bounties and other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors or marines, 
or their heirs, were to remain in force until otherwise ordered by Con- 
gress. 

Question. That was all the succession there was to the commissioner- 
ship or trusteeship l 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Is it, or not, a violation of law for the heads of executive 
departments to send clerks to overhaul and reexamine accounts of dis- 
bursing officers which have been settled and closed, unless fraud in spe- 
cific cases is charged ? 

Answer. There is no prohibitory law of that kind, nor is there any 
law which gives authority to do it. [A book was here handed the wit- 
ness.] I would state in explanation, as the law of 1868 has been handetl 
me 

Question. What is the date of the law ? 

Answer. It is the act of March 3, 1868. That reads this way : 

The act of March 3, 1817, entitled "An act to provide for the prompt settlement of 
public accounts," shall not be construed to authorize the heads of Departments to change 
or modify the balances that may be certified to them by the Commissioner of Customs 
or the Comptroller of the Treasury, but that such balances, when stated by the Auditor 
and properly certified by the Comptroller as provided by that act, shall be taken and 
considered as final and conclusive upon the executive branch of the Government, and 
be subject to revision only by Congress or the proper courts': Provided, That the head 
of the proper Department, before signing a warrant for any balance certified to him by 
a Comptroller, may submit to such Comptroller any facts in his judgment affecting the 
correctness of such balance, but the decision of the Comptroller thereon shall be final 
and conclusive as hereinbefore provided. 



298 

Question. AVonld you waut to modify yonr reply, then ? 

Answer. Not at all. I merely wanted to state what was the history 
of tbis, as I understand perfectly well how that law was passed, because 
I sent it up to ]\rr. Fessenden, who was then in the Senate, and it was 
introduced with an argument by himself, and referred to a committee of 
which Mr. Williams was one of the members. It was referred to him. 

(Question. Go on and explain the meaning of the law. 

Answer. It was held that the authority given to the Secretary of War, 
for instance, to issue a requisition upon a settled account gave him also 
a discretion as to the amount for which he would issue his requisition even 
after the finding of the accounting officers, and it was sometimes reduced 
at the suggestion of my friend the Quartermaster-General ; and, the matter 
was submitted to Congress after some considerable discussion, and I 
wrote a letter to General Grant when he was Secretary of War ot^ interim, 
stating that although I had no doubt myself in regard to the right of 
the Comptroller to make a decision, still, as it was a matter of some 
controversy, that I would be glad to have it submitted to Congress. It 
was submitted to Congress, and this law was passed. It passed without 
any opposition at all in the Senate, and I believe only 16 or 17 votes in 
the Bouse. The next year there was a proposition made to repeal it, at 
the suggestion of the Secretary ot War, and Judge Poland had the 
matter referred to his committee and made a report that was acquiesced 
in, and no further action has been had. Of course it remains a law to 
this day. 

Question. If the vouchers on which you have just testified were not 
chargeable to the appropriations for the fiscal years 1S71 and 1872, why 
were they allowed to the credit of General Balloch, disbursing agent 
in the Freedmen's Bureau, in the settlement of his accounts? 

Answer. I should be unable to answer that question. It is possible 
there was some explanation that induced the clerk who examined the 
account to admit them, and it is possible they may have been properly 
admitted ; that I cannot say. But the court are of course i)erfectly 
aware that I see but very few vouchers that pass through my office. Of 
course, if there was anything that required action of the head of the 
office, it ought to have been submitted to me. This never was. 

Question. But having passed the Auditors and Comptrollers of the 
Treasury, is that not final, unless an account be fraudulent '? 

Answer. I think it is. 

Question. Are you or not to be uiulerstood as judging that no account 
was required to be rendered by the Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau as trustee under the act of March 2, 1807, of the funds placed 
in trust, no supervision or audit on the part of the Treasury, or any 
court, or any office, of his expenditure? 

Answer. I do not think that any accounts were required to be rendered 
by the Commissioner as the custodian and trustee under that law, until 
he had fulfilled the object of that trust ; and then under the second 
section, I think it is, it is provided what should be done; he shall turn 
over the money that may be in his hands, and of course in order to de- 
cide how much money he shall turn over, he must account for all that 
has come into his hands. 

Question. AYho to ? 

Answer. The Secretary of the Treasury. 

Question. Was it not right then that the Commissioner should file his 
vouchers for the disbursement of this fund in the Treasury? 

Answer. I think it would have been right. 

Question. During the progress or at the end I 



299 

Auswer. At tlie end, wlien be renders Lis liii;)l account. 

Question. The second section of the act approved February 12, 1 SOS, says 
no money appropriated for one purpose shall hereafter be used for auj- 
other purpose than that for which it is appropriated. If now an appro- 
Ijriation was made for a specific purpose, like the one mentioned ou 
page 50(3 of the sixteenth volume Statutes at Large, and out of that 
api>ropriatiou a voucher was paid for services rendered the Government 
previous to that appropriation, and you or the Second or Third Auditors 
should pass that account, although ou its face showing that it had been 
made for services rendered previous to the period for which the appro- 
priation was made, would you consider your actiou final ? 

Answer. I think I should consider it final so far as the responsibility 
of the disbursing officer was concerned. If there was no fraud and the 
expenditure was a proper oue for which the United States were properly 
responsible, an error in the appropriation I do not thiidc would inure to 
the injury of the disbursing officer after it had passed the Treasury. 
And iu regard to another point w hich you make there, that is, that what 
was appropriated for one object should not be diverted, to another : 
Nothing is more usual than for some eight or ten items in an appropria- 
tion to be aggregated b^^ the Secretary of the Treasury when he sends 
the appropriation in to the Auditors and Comptrollers. Now, for in- 
stance, in this very matter of General Howard, there is rather a strik- 
ing instance; the very first appropriation that was made was iu 
these terms : Salaries of assistant and sub-assistant commissioners, 
$147,500; salaries of clerks. $62,900; stationery and printing, f 03,000; 
quarters and fuel, $15,000 ; clothing for distribution, $1,170,000; com- 
missary stores, $3,100,250 ; medical department, $500,000 ; transporta- 
tion, $1,320,000; school superintendents, $21,000; repairs and rents of 
the school-houses and asylums, $550,000; telegraphing, $18,000; the 
whole is $0,944,450. The Secretary of the Treasury-, under the authority 
of the laws of 1789 and 1792 prescribing the forms of keeping Treasury 
accounts, put the whole of that under one head — support of the Bureau 
of Eefugees, Freedmen, &c., $0,944,450 — all these eleven items, so that 
as long as there was any money applicable for any proper expenditure 
these subordinate appropriations were not regarded at all ; we knew 
nothing about them ; some of them may have been exceeded, and of 
course others would not have the full amount draw n. 

Question. And that was done in order to make the keeping of ac- 
counts practicable ? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Aud was that clearly within the authority of the Secretary of 
the Treasury ! 

Answer. Yes, sir; the two laws I have mentioned giving authority to 
prescribe the form of keeping and stating accounts. 

Question. When the final accounts of the Commissioner as trustee are 
submitted, as you think they ought to be, to the Treasury, did I understand 
you that the Treasury officials are to judge of the character of the ex- 
penditures and the mode of the disbursements? 

Answer. The accounts should be rendered to the satisfaction of the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury. He can undoubtedly direct the Auditor and Comp- 
troller to investigate the accounts and to report; but, as you are aware, 
the money was entirely outside of Treasury money. It never belonged 
to the United States aud has to be settled' merely as a trustee account. 

Question. The goodness of the account to be judged of by the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury and not the Secretary of War'? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 



300 

Question, Would uotthat law be fulfilled if General Howard or the Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau were to state to the Treasury that he 
had a certain balance of that fund and turned that money in ; would that 
not be accounting for the balance ? 

Answer. It would if they received it as such ; if it was satisfactory to the 
Treasury; if he made a statement that was satisfactory to the Treasury 
as to the disposition of all the money that came into his hands under 
that law, that would be sufficient, I suppose, under the law. 

Question. The law does not say he shall account for this fund, but 
when the Bureau is closed up he shall account for the balance ? 

Answer. Certainly ; I used that as an inference merely. That is, the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury could not know whether the amount turned over 
was a proper sum or not, unless vouchers were produced for the amount 
he had disbursed under the law. 

Question. But under the law is he obliged to give vouchers for what 
he has expended, or only the balance he has on hand ? 

Answer. Well, he must produce evidence satisfactory to the Secretary. 

Andrew Cauldwell recalled. 

Direct examination resumed by the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Referring to vouchers numbers ol, 513, 53, 55, 57, G4, and 
68 which were shown the Second ( 'Omptroller in your presence, please 
state where they are from. 

Answer. They are from the Bureau accounts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George 
W. Balloch for July, 1871. 

Question. From what office ? 

Answer. From the files of the Third Auditor's Office, settled accounts. 

[The judge-advocate then offered the said vouchers in evidence and 
they were received, there being no objection by the accused, and attached 
to the record and marked Exhibits F'', G*^, H^, ¥, J*^, K*^, & L*^, respect- 
ively.] 

On motion the court then, at 3.40 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to- 
morrow morning, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



TWENTY SEVENTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, April 15, 1874 — 11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, IT. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eevnolds, Third Cavalrv, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, IJ. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate U. S. A., judge advocate; 
also, 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
I f r'oansel. 



301 

The minutes of tbe proceedings of yesterdiiy were partially read aud 
approved. 

William H, Harrison, a former witness, being- present, tbe minutes 
of his testimony were read to him, and were dechired by him to be cor- 
rect as recorded. 

Andrew Cauldwell, a former witness, was then recalled and 
in the presence of the accused was questioned as follows : 

By the Judcie-Advocate : 

Question. Referring to Exhibit D*^ introduced in testimony yesterday, 
please state when that voucher of Alexander R. Shepherd & Bros, was 
rendered to the Treasury, and by whom ? 

Answer. It was rendered to the Treasury some time in Ainil. Of course 
I do not kuow^ the exact date — subsequent to March, 1871 ; it is in his 
accounts Jor March, 1871, lendered by Bvt. Biig. Gen. George W. Bal 
loch. 

Question. Have you here in court the abstract which, I presume, ac- 
companied that voucher ? 

Answer. Yes, sir, I have. 

Question. Will you please refer to it ? 

Answer. I have it. [Showing a paper.] 

Question. By whom is that abstract signed, and by whom, if by any- 
body, is it approved ? And please give the form of approval. 

Answer. It is as follows: 

I certify tbe above abstract is correct. 

CxEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bit. Brig. Gen., and Chief Dwhursing Officer Bureau li. F. and A. L. 

It is approved as follows : 

I bave examined tbe voucbers uoted ou tbe above abstract, aud bereby approve tbe 
payment of tbe same. 

O. 0. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General United States Army, Commissioner. 

Question. Are you familiar with General Howard's signature"? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know whether that is his signature or not "? 

Ansver. I believe it to be genuine. 

Question. Where this voucher is me ntioned in that abstract, what does 
it say ? 

Answer. March 24, voucher No. 90. Alex. R. Shepherd & Bros. 
$16,652.25. 

Question. Do you know w hether that abstract accompanied this 
voucher or not ? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge and belief it did. 

Question. Please now refer to Exhibit E*^, which appears to be the 
duplicate voucher signed "Alex, li. Shepherd & Bros." 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When was that rendered to the Treasury f 

Answer. Rendered to the Treasury, as per letter of transmittal, De- 
cember 31, 1873. It was received in the Treasury January 2 ; in our 
ofiBce January 2, 1874. 

Question. This voucher appear s to be different from the other, in that 
it has upon its face the words — 

Approved and ordered to be paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Major-General, Commissioner. 



• - 302 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know whose signature that is ? 

Answer, That is General Howard's. 

Question. Do j'ou know when aucl where that approval of General 
Howard was put upon that voucher ? 

Answer. It was put on that voucher on my desk in the Third Audi- 
tors Office, in my i»reseuce. 

Question. When ? 

Answer. It was, I think, on the od of January ; I did not note the date, 
but my impression is that it was on the 3d ; it must have been the 3d : I 
think the mornin<i' of the 3d or the afternoon of the 2d. 

Question. 1874 ". 

Answer. 1871. 

Question. Did any abstract accompany this second voucher, Exhibit 
E? 

Answer. No, sir ; that was the reason I had the voucher approved. 
The usual form, theretofore, was to have abstracts approved, but there 
were very few vouchers in this case, and no abstract. They were all 
enumerated on the account-current. 

Question. What account was it that was rendered to you iu which 
this voucher. Exhibit E, appears? 

Answer. It was supplemental account-current of George W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing officer Bureau Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands, for October, 1871. 

(Question. What did it purport to have reference to ? 

Answer. To iuterest received on the $300,000 of currency 6s, and 
the disbursement thereof of the interest, and the premium, of course, 
received. 

Question. Referring to Letter B-, on page 8, part second. Exhibit B, 
third item, do you know of any account rendered to the Treasury De- 
partment of that nature? 

Answer. TJm is the account ; this supplementary account. 

Question. Where are the voucliers of that supplementary account- 
current? 

Answer. In your hands, sir. They are numbered from 1 to 8. 

Question. By whom are these all apparently approved? 

Answer. By General O. O. Howard. 

(Question. Were they approved at the same time as this other voucher, 
Exhibit E, in your presence '? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I notice one item here, "By premium on $300,000 currency 
Gs at Hi, $31,500. Will you please explain, if you can, what that has 
reference to "? 

Answer. I do not know of my own knowledge, positively, what it has 
reference to any more than what I had explained to u)e by General Bal- 
loch at the time that the account w^as rendered, that it was $300,000 of 
the bounty-fund that was placed in those currency 6s, and subsequently 
sold and the i)roceeds taken up on this account. I mean the profits 
arising out of it; the i)roceeds were put back in the proper appro- 
priation. 

[The Judge-advocate offered in evidence a copy of the supplementary 
account-current and the vouchers therewith, and they were received and 
marked respectively Exhibits M«, is^e. 0«, P^ Q', li% S«, T^, W.] 

Question. What action has been taken, if any, by the Third Auditor, 
with reference to those accounts thus rendered? 

Answer. Those accounts were audited under direction of the Third 



303 

Auditor and reported to tlie Second Comptroller, and the action of the 
Third Auditor confirmed. 

Question. What was his action ? 

Answer. Allowing the vouchers, as enumerated on the accountcur- 
reut, and closing the account. 

Question. Has any action been taken since then with reference to 
those accounts ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Please state what action. 

Answer. I will have to refer to dates. That account was reported to 
the Comptroller, and returned, I think, on the -tth or 5th of January, 
1874, api)roved, and the account closed. Some time daring the month 
of February I was informed by the Auditor that Assistant Adjutant- 
General Vincent had called on the Secretary of the Treasury and noti- 
fied him — first off. Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent sent over and 
got a copy of that account-current and the voucher, and on the next day 
Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent called on the Secretary of the 
Treasury and informed him that there was something wrong in the ac- 
count. That is what the Third Auditor told me. Of conrse the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury called the Third Auditor down and, in the presence 
of General Vincent, stated the facts to him, and told him to get that 
account and overhaul it and see what uiight be wrong. The Third Au- 
ditor then called me into his room, after returning from the office of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, and stated the facts to me, and asked me to 
take the account aiul re-examine it and compare it with the accounts of 
General Balloch, his past accounts covering that period. I did so and 
then discovered that voucher 2, enumerated here, of Alex. E. Shepherd 
& Bros., was in substance a duplicate of voucher 90 in Balloch's account- 
current for March, 1871, which had heretofore been allowed in the set- 
tlement of his accounts for that period. On consultation subsequently 
with the Second Auditor and Second Comptroller it was decided to 
charge General Balloch back with the amount of that last voucher, and 
it was done and a special settlement made, an<l he is now charged on 
the books of our office with that amount. A letter was written to him 
requesting him to refund the amount, and he has responded to that letter 
in substance, saying that as soon as he has time to overlook his papers 
he will either explain the matter or deposit the money with the Treas- 
urer of the United States. 

Question. At what date was it that the Third Auditor called you 
into his office and requested you to re-open the account and examine it f 

Answer. On the llth of February, 1871, the Secretary of War re- 
quested copies of that account current ; on the IGth of February I had 
copies made and they were certified to and forwarded to the Secretary 
of War. 

(^)uestion. When were you directed by the Third Auditor to re-0])en 
and examine this account? 

Answer. It was a short time after I discovered that the voucher was 
a duplicate, and had been allowed in his accounts for March, 1871. 

Question. When did you get the first intimation from the Third Audi- 
tor that there was a supposition that the voucher had been duplicated 
and twice allowed ? 

Answer. After his interview, on the same day of his interview, with 
the Secretary of the Treasury and the Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Question. Can you fix what date that was ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it was the day after I sent the copies that were 
sent to the Secretary of War. We transmitted them February IG. 



304 

They possibly readied there February 17. It was oa that day, I think, 
February 17 ; I am almost positive of that. 

Questiou. Eeferring to vouchers Nos. 51, o2, 53, 5"}, 61, G7, and 08, 
which you produced in court here yesterday and which are now parts 
of the record, will you please state whether any abstracts accompanied 
those vouchers, and, if so, by whom the abstracts were approved '• 

Answer. Those vouchers enumerated by you are on the abstract for 
July, '71, certified to as beings correct by George W. Balloch, Brevet 
Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer Bureau Eefugees, Freed- 
meii and Abandoned Lands, and the certificate : 

I have examiuccl the vouchers noted on the above abstract and hereby approve the 
pajmeut of the same. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., U. S. A., Commis^iioiier. 

By the CoUET : 

Question. How many vouchers are on that abstract ? 

Answer. One hundred and fifteen. 

The accused (through his counsel) stated that the cross-examination 
■of this witness would occupy some time, and as he noticed that Mr. 
Tayler, the First Comptroller, was present, and understood that the 
judge-advocate had some questions to ask him, he would suggest that 
it be suspended until after the examination of INIr. Tayler. 

It was so ordered. 

Hon. Egbert W. Tayler, a former witness, was recalled, and in the 
presence of the accused testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Has your attention ever been directed to the act of Con- 
gress approved July 12, 1870, and the previous act of Congress approved 
February 12, 1808, on the subject of appropriations, and when appli- 
ciible ? 

Answer. It has. 

Question. As First Comptroller, have you ever been called upon to 
give any construction as to those acts ? 

Answer. I have, but I could not now tell definitely what the construc- 
tion was. I do not think there was much construction to be given to the 
last one. It is i)Ositive in forbidding transfers from one appropriation 
to the other ; and since then I have no knowledge of any transfer being- 
made, except some transfers that are authorized by special acts of Con- 
gress. 

Question. Eeferring to the appropriation act of Congress approved 
March 3, 1871, for the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, on page 500 of the ICth volume of Statutes at Large, will you 
please state what description of ai)propriation that is, in your judgment ; 
whether it is a permanent or indefinite appropriation, or an appropria- 
tion for a particular branch, for a specific period. 

Answer. I regard that as an appropriation made for the service for the 
year mentioned in the act, and governed by the provisions of the 5th, 
<6th, and 7th sections of the act of July 12, 1870. 

Question. What supervisory action have you, as First Comptroller, 
over appropriations made by law ? 

Answer. The law authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to grant 
warrants on appropriations made by law, and requires that the First 
Comptroller should countersign all those that are warranted by law ; so 
that his concurrent judgment is necessary to the validity of the war- 



305 

raut. Warrants drawn on appropriations of that character wouhl be 
upon the requisition of the Secretary of War, and no further inquiry 
wouhl be made than tbat the appropriation was niaxh^ and the Secretary 
of War made the requisition for its payment to the proper officer. With 
the settlement of the account afterward I would have nothing to do ; 
that wouhl bek>ng to the Second Comptroller. 

Question. AVhat authority, if any, rests iu the Secretary of War to 
ascertain whether the moneys drawn on his warrants are or not being 
appropriated to the specific purposes mentioned in the warrant? 

Answer. I suppose he would ha^e a general supervisory jiower over 
it; but the ultimate decision of the question would generally belong to 
the Second Comptroller, unless in cases where the expenditure is mat- 
ter of discretion with the Secretary of War; then the Com])troller would 
not have any authority over it, except to examine figures and see that 
the money was ai)propriated or expended according to the direction of 
the Secretary of War. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Which one of the appropriations 
are you now inquiring about? 

The Judge-Advocate. I am now inquriug about the appropriation 
made by Congress for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses 
of the Government for the year ending June 30, 1872, as recited in one 
of my first questions to Mr. Tayler. On page 3 of Exhibit B, part first, 
at the top of the page, is the statement, ^' misapplication $30,314.77." 
I propose to show that out of this appropriation which I have just men- 
tioned that sum was taken to pay debts which had been contractjed by 
the Freedmen's Bureau prior to the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1871. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Is it relative to the appropri- 
ation of the sum of $173,919.21 on page 14, or that of $127,000 ? 

The Judge-Advocate. It has nothing to do with the $127,000. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) It is on the other, then? 

The Judge Advocate. It is on the other; the $127,000 appropria- 
tion was a deficiency ap[)ropriation. 

Question. Suppose in the case of a specific act of Congress making 
specific appropriations, like the one for the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
meu and Abandoned Lauds, to which your attention has been directed, 
and you have countersigned the necessary warrant, and you afterward 
ascertain that debts or accounts for previous years were being paid out 
of that appropriation for that particular year, what authority would 
you have, if any, in tlie premises! 

Answer. I would have none. 

Question. Who would have the authority iu such case ? 

Answer. The only authority that I know of would be that of the 
Second Comptroller to reject the accounts that were paid erroneously. 

Question. If, however, the Second Comptroller approved an account 
of that description, which, on its face, showed that it was for services 
rendered jmor to the time for which the appropriation had been made, 
■would any executive branch of the Government have any authority iu 
the premises ? 

The accused (through his counsel) objected to the question on the 
ground that it was not the best evidence that could be obtained on the 
subject. 

The Judge Advocate. The Second Comptroller has already been on 
the stand and testified to what he knew iu the premises. My under- 
standing is, that the First Comptroller has certain power with reference 
to such warrants as are drawn on the Treasury. I must say that I was 
Ko-newbat surprised yesterday in the statements made by the Second 
20 H c 



306 

Comptroller tliat, substantially, be could override a law. He stated, as 
I understood, that if an appropriation is made for a specific period of 
time, and a voucher is rendered wliicli shows that it was for an anterior 
period of time, and he passes that voucher, as it purports to have been 
paid out of that appropriation, that nevertheless his action is final and 
conclusive. 

A Member. Have you quoted literally what the Second Comptroller 
did say 1 

The Judge-Advocate. I am giving my recollection of it. The re- 
porter's notes are not yet written out on that subject. 

The President. The Second Comptroller stated that in substance, 
and I rather think in language, almost. 

A Member of the Court, (to the judge-advocate.) You do not 
profess to ^ve the exact words. 

The Judge-Advocate. That was the idea he conveyed, which I gath- 
ered from the whole of his testimony. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) May it please the court, I wish 
to say that my recollection of the testimony of the Second Comptroller 
does not agree with the recollection of the judge-advocate. I am quite 
sure that I did not hear such a harsh expression, as that he had the 
power to override the law, as made by him, and I certainly understood 
his testimony to go no further than that when an account had been 
settled that that was the end of the account, for certain purposes, as 
explained by him. Xow, I understand that the judge-advocate pro- 
poses, to prove by the First Comptroller either what the duty of the 
Second Comptroller is, which I think is objectionable, because the Sec- 
ond Comptroller should be supposed to know what his duty is better 
than the First Comptroller can know ; and next to show by the 
First Comptroller that the Second Comptroller has been in error in his 
testimony. It is a fundaniental rule of practice in the courts, founded 
on reason, that the party calling a witness shall not contradict him — 
shall not discredit him. I think the inquiry is objectionable for both 
those reasons. To any question addressed to the First Comptroller as 
to his view of the law which applies to the duties of his office, I have 
no objection, because he is the best possible witness on those points } 
but when the judge-advocate goes outside of that and asks him to ex- 
l)lain the duty of another officer, that I think is not the best of evidence. 

[The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced the decision of the court that the objection is sustained.] 

Question. When did that act of Congress, approved July 12, 1870, to^ 
which you have referred, go into effect, according to the ruling of the 
Treasury ? 

Answer. It went into effect at its date. It could not have any retro- 
active effect, although by its terms it covered the whole year, and being 
passed at a date after the fiscal year had begun, it complicated matters 
very much, as we could not jjossibly carry it out in all particulars. We 
tried to do it as much as we could, but failed in some instances. 

(Question, Do you recollect of any appropriation for collecting, drilling,, 
and organizing recruits and volunteers which came under your official 
notice with reference to this act of July 12, 1870, after the passage of 
that act ? 

Answer. I have no recollection of any question connected with the 
appropriation for volunteers — arming and equipping volunteers. I have 
no doubt that the subject was considered in some form, but I would not 
have any direct jurisdiction over the expenditure of the money.. If the 



Secretary of War made a requisition upon the Secretary of the Treasury 
for rnone^r payable for that appropriation, and the Secretary should 
issue his warrant, I would countersign it ; the responsibility for keeping 
within the laAV of 1870 would be for the War Department and the dis- 
bursing officers of that Department, and if they should depart from it 
It would be the duty of the Second Comptroller to reject the accounts. 

Question. Suppose he passed the accounts, would you then have any 
supervisory a(;tion ? 

Answer. JSToue whatever; as I have no jurisdiction over the Second 
Comptroller at all. 

CroiiS-exam liiat ion. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. At what time did this act of July 12, 1870, go fully and ab- 
solutely into effect in your Office ? 

Answer. It went into effect as soon as we knew what the provisions 
were, and, as far as we could, carried it out ; but there were — in some re- 
spects it was impossible. Our books of account had already been made 
up for the past year. We could not open new books, and separate the 
old accounts from the new ; and therefore it was impossible in every in- 
stance to separate the ex[)enditures of one year from those of tlie other, 
or payments from the different appropriations of the two years. On the 
27th July the Attorney-General gave an opinion. 

Question. What year "? 

Answer: 1870. The Attorney-General gave an opinion upon the con- 
struction of those three sections of the act, at the request of the Secre- 
tary of War. When I received a copy of that opinion, I issued a circu- 
lar to the several disbursing officers whose accounts were to be passed 
through my Office, instructing them to carry it out, the provisions 
of the law; but some did not receive it, and some knevv nothing about 
it, and the accounts became considerably mixed up in that way. And, 
as I learned, in other offices of the Government it was the same way, 
and all we could do was to do the best we could. After the expiration 
of that year, then we were more rigid about it. 

Question. Now, returning to the former question, about what time 
did it go fully into effect in your Office exclusively "? 

Answer. Not until the beginning of the next fiscal year. That would 
be July, 1871. 

Question. The 1st of July, 1871 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The Judge- Advocate. Do you recollect whether that was the opin- 
ion of the Attorney-Gener-nl to which you refer ! [Handing witness 
opinion.] 

Answer. I presume it is ; the date is the same. 

Question. It was delivered, then, on the 27th of July, 1870? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. By Mr. Akerman ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Court : 

Question. Who was then Attorney- General? 

Answer. He was then Attorney-General. 

Question. Would the Secretary of War, under the general power you 
say he has to supervise expenditures of money drawn from tlie Treasury 
by his warrant, have the right to exercise that power over the expendi- 



308 

lures, after the accounts for such expenditures have been settled and 
closed by the Treasury ? 

Answer. He would not. After the accounts were passed to the Treas- 
ury, the supervision of the Secretary of War is ended, except in a par- 
ticular case i)rovided by the act of, I think, 18G8. I will not give the 
date of it. It authorizes the head of the Department to which the ac- 
counts belong to direct the Comptroller to re-examine the accounts and 
furnish him a reason for it. jS^evertbeless, when he has re-examined it, 
the action of the Comptroller is final and conclusive upon all the depart- 
ments of the Government ; all the executive departments; 

Question. What head of an Executive Department? 

Answer. I will find the act. Here is the act. I will quote the pro- 
viso. It is an act approved March 30, 1868, chapter 38, " Provided, That 
the head of the proper department, before signing a warrant for any 
balance certified to him by a Comptroller, may submit to such Comptroller 
any facts which, in his judgment, affect the correctness of such balance; 
but the decision of the Comptroller shall be final and conclusive as here- 
inbefore provided." 

Question. Your language in your answer was " may direct." Would 
you retain that expression in your answer? 

Answer. Well, I construe it in that way — " may direct." This pro- 
viso is awkward ; that is the meaning of it. I construe it "direct." 

Question. In case the iSecond Comptroller thinks the reasons assigned 
by the head of an Executive Department are not sufiicieut to warrant 
an examination of the account, is the Comptroller obliged, nevertheless, 
to examine such account"? 

Answer. I say no; the Comptroller is never obliged to do a vain 
thing. 

Question. I understood you to say that the head of an Executive 
Department had a right to direct him to do it. 

Answer. Well, to submit the facts and have them examined. What 
I mean by that, is to examine the reasons furnished by the head of the 
Department. That is an examination of the case. That is what 1 
mean ; not to take up the account and go over the items of the account. 
That would be useless. But he examines the facts submitted to him 
and the reasons submitted by the head of the Department. 

Question. The objections ? 

Answer. The objections. It would be useless to re-opeu the account 
unless the reasons were sufficient. 

Andrew Cauldavell then resumed the stand and was 

Cross - examined. 

By the Accused (through his counsel :) 

Question. Mr. Cauldwell, when did the correspondence commence with 
your office in regard to this second voucher!? 

Answer. The official correspondence commenced on the 14th of Feb- 
ruary, being a letter from the Secretary of War, requesting copies of 
that account-current. Prior to that, however, the chief clerk of the 
Freedmen's Branch of the Adjutant- General's Office came over and made 
lead-pencil copies of the account-current and vouchers. 

Question. What is the name of that chief clerk ? 

Answer. It is Moody. I forget his initials. 

The Accused. J. s!^ 

Answer. J, S. 



309 

Question. Was there prior to this letter of the Secretary of War a 
letter of General Howard upon that matter ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. What was the date of that letter? 

Answer. Twelfth February. General Howard asked the Third Auditor 
if General Balloch had taken up the amount of $19,446.57 interest on 
certain currency G's, bonds referred to in that account-current. 

Question. Then that was the tirst letter in the correspondence, was it 
not ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(Question. Was that letter answered by the Third Auditor ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you those letters here, or copies of them ? 

Answer. I have. 

The Judge- Advocate. I would like to inquire of the counsel, through 
the court, whether or not he proposes to cross-examine this witnes;^ upon 
theexamination-iu-chief or whether his examination nowis in the nature 
of a defense! 

The Counsel for the accused. I am willing to answer that question. 
The first memorandum I have upon my notes here in the direct examina- 
tion of this witness is about the Shepherd vouchers. I am now cross- 
examining him upon a matter inquired of in the examination-in-chief, 
but I would like, with the permission of the court, to have those letters 
read that I have asked for. 

The Judge-Advocate. I have no objection to the gentleman asking 
the witness what he pleases, on any subjects with reference to these 
charges, but it must be with a distinct understanding that he makes 
him his witness as to any new matter, and that I am to have an oppor- 
tunity of cross-examining him upon that new matter. I have thus far 
been debarred of that very valuable privilege. In the examination of 
"witnesses the accused through his counsel has on several occasions 
brought forward papers and documents which had no relation to the 
subject upon which the witness had been examiued, and belonged more 
properly to the time when he comes to make his defense. I have simply 
put in certain vouchers and shown their approval. Now, if the counsel 
desires to offer any other papers, let him wait until the case is with him, 
or else, if he now wishes to enter upon his defense, let it be distinctly 
understood that he makes the witness his witness, so that I may have 
an opportunity of cross-examining as to the new matter which he may 
elicit. Of course I desire to see the fullest investigation as well as the 
court, but there are certain rules governing these matters, well settled 
and well established, and I do not wish to be placed at a disadvantage 
while endeavoring to prove the affirmative by having a distinct defense 
interpolated. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) >[ay it please the court, the 
judge-advocate ])ut in evidence that early in January General Howard 
approved a particular voucher in the office of the Third Auditor. He 
has proved that after that — I have not the date — General Vincent sent 
over to the Third Auditor's office in relation to the examination of these 
accounts. He has put in ])roof that on February 14th the Secretary of 
War wrote a letter about that. He has put in proof another letter of 
February 17th, if I have the date correct. Now, we wish to show that 
before this letter of the War Department to the Third Auditor, General 
Howard himself had taken action in this very matter ; and it seeuis to 
us that it is fairly a part of the same transaction which has been drawn 
out by the judge-advocate, and that it is not fair for him to say. " 1 have 



310 

inquired about a particular trausaction ; souie steps iu that transaction 
I liave left out; therefore, because I have left them out, you cannot 
inquire about them." It seems to me that that is just his position in 
this case now. 

The Judge- Advocate. I think the gentleman misunderstands me. 
He has stated that his object is to show that General Howard impiired 
about this transaction at a stated time. I did not elicit it in the direct 
examination. I asked nothiufj about General Howard inquiring* into 
this transaction at all ; on the contrary, I did not tou(;h upon it. That 
is, I think a matter for the defense, and finally, when the defense comes 
on, they can connect his inquiries with the matter. It may be a part of 
the same inquiry, but it goes iu a different way, under different rules of 
evidence, as, to wit, he makes the witness his witness, and I nuist have the 
privilege of cross-examining him, which I esteem a very valuable privi- 
lege, and the opi>ortunity of rebuttal, otherwise I am endeavoring to 
estai)lisli tlie aflBniative of the proposition, and at the same time the 
accused is using my witness to prove directly the reverse by offering to 
prove another state of facts which I have not touched upon. Still, I am 
willing he should do it, if the court desire it; provided it is understood 
by the court and by the accused and his counsel that he makes the wit- 
ness his witness, and that I have the right to cross examine him. 

Thecourt was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re-opened, 
the accused and his counsel being present, the judge advocate announced 
the decision of the court is that the letters may be read by the wit- 
ness. 

The Judge- Advocate. I now desire to ask the court whether I am 
to be allowed the privilege of cross-examining the witness. 

The President. You may examine the witness to any extent, and 
any questions you wish to ask you may submit through the court, and 
they will be put by the court, if they are not objectionable. The court 
have the right to cross-examine at all times, regardless of rules of evi- 
dence. 

The Witness. The letter is from Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard. (Reads:) 

Washixgtox, D. C, February 12, 1874. 
Gen. Allan Rutherford, 

Third Auditor, Treasurij Depart)uent : 
Sir : A cmitrove'sy seems to have arisen between General Geo. W. Balloch, late disburs- 
ing officer of the Bnr(>au Refugees, Freediuen and Abandoned Lands, and General E. D. 
Towiisend, Adjutant-General of the Army, the f.ruier asserting that he has taken up and 
accounted foi $19,440.57, realized from interest on certain bonds, and the latter, that he 
has not done so. 

I remember that I a]iproved the vouchei's that, I believe, belonged to this fund, and 
requested that the amount be taken up and accounted for on the refugees and freed- 
inen's fund. Will you have the kindness to state if this amount was so taken up and 
accounted forin your office ? I ask this to enable me to fulfill an order of the Secretary 
of War, couched in these terms, viz : " If it has not been accounted for, I hereby direct 
that the aniount be at <ince deposited with the Treasurer of the United States." 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 

(Indorsed:) W^ashington, D. C, February 12, 1874. O. O. Howard, &c. 

That was received in our office on the same day, February 12. The 
answer is as follows : 

Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 

Washington, I). C, February 12, 1874. 
Sir : In reply to yours of this date, asking to be informed whether Brig. Gen. G. W. 
Balloch, late disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Frt^edmen and Abandoned Lands, 
* hius taken up and accounted for $19,446.57, realized from interest on certain bonds," 



311 

I have the honor to inform you that the amonut ahove referred to was taken up and 
accounted for by that officer upon siccouuts rendered to this office, and that the 
same was disbursed upon vouchers approved by you, and audited and allowed by the 
accounting officers of the Treasury Di-partment. 
Very respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Aiidiior. 
Brig. Gen. O. 0. Howard, U. S. A., 

Washington, D. C. 

The Judge- Advocate. I would like now to ask wlietlier this first letter 
to the Auditor, which has beeu read, is intended to be evideuce as to the 
facts recited in it as to General Howard or not. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) It is put iu as part of the evi- 
dence of this wituess. 

The Judge-Advocate. What I ask is if the facts recited iu this let- 
ter of General Howard's are to be considered as takeu as evidence. 

The AccTTSED, (through his counsel.) As to the settlement of the ac- 
counts, that is already proven. 

The Judge-Advocate. What I refer to more particularly is, " I remem- 
ber that I approved the vouchers that I believe belonged to this fund, 
and requested that the amount be taken up and accounted for ou the 
refugees and freedmen's fund." What 1 desire to know is whether you 
intend that to ])e considered as evidence of the statement there made. 

The President. I understand the evidence to be merely that he ad- 
dressed a letter of a certain date and received a letter of another date. 
It is to be taken by the court for what it is worth, but not as proof of 
the facts therein recited. 

[Thetwo letters read iu evidence were marked, respectively, as Exhibits 
V« and W*'.] 

Question. On the 13th day of February, the day after, did Mr. Moody 
come over to your office I 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Did he bring with him a letter of General Howard's forward- 
ing or stating the contents of the letter to the Third Auditor which you 
have just read ? 

Answer. He brought a letter from General Howard, inclosing a copy of ■ 
the last letter read by me, and at that time made a pencil-memoranda 
of the accounts, and asked to see that supplementary account-current, 
and made a lead-pencil memorandum of the figures of the account-cur- 
rent and amount of the vouchers. 

Question. Then, so far as you know, the attention of the War Depart- 
ment was first directed to these accounts by the letter of the Third 
Auditor transmitted by General Howard to the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I am positive of that fact from the statement made 
by Moody to me. His words were, in substance, that he had made a 
wrong assertion ; he had asserted to the Adjutant-General that that inter- 
est had not beeu accounted for ; but on receipt of this communication 
from General Howard he found he had made a big mistake, and there- 
fore requested to see the accounts. 

Question. Then, on the 14th of February, as I understand you, the 
Secretary of War asked for copies ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; I have his letter here. 

Question. The letter of the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; with the indorsement of the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury on it. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) I would like to have that letter 
read. 



312 

The President. I think it will come in under the same ruling. Ifc 
may be read for what it is worth, for the information of the court. 
The letter was read, as follows : 

War Di:partment, 
Washington City, February 14, 1874. 
To the Hob. the Secretary of the Treasury : 

Sir : With refereuce to communication dated February 12, 1874, from the Third Audi- 
tor, United States Treasury, to Brig. Gen. 0. O. Howard, U. S. A., copy herewith in- 
closed, I have the honor to request that I be furnished with a copy of the accounts (ac- 
count-current, vouchers, and letter transmitting the same) rendered to the acconntiug 
offifcers of the Treasury Department upon which the $19,446.57 realized from interest 
on certain bonds was taken up and accounted for by George W. Ballocb, late disbursing 
officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

I will thank you for a reply at your earliest convenience, by Tuesday next, if practi- 
cable. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 

The Witness. It was received, of course, by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, and indorsed as follows : 

[First inciorsenient.] 

Resjiectfully referred to the Third Auditor for answer. 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 

Question. Was that letter answered by the Third Auditor ? 
Answer. It was. 

Question. If you have the answer, please read it. 
Answer. The answer was made direct, in compliance with the direction 
of the Secretary of the Treasury, and is as follows : 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 
Washington. D. C, February 16, 1874. 
Sir : In compliance with the request contained in your letter of the 14th instant, 
addressed to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, and by that officer referred to 
this office for answer, I have the honor to inclose herewith copies of supplementary ac- 
count-current for October, 1871, vouchers, and letter of transmittal, rendered to the 
accounting officers of the Tieasury, upon which the sum of .$19,446.57, realized froiH 
interest on certain bonds, was taken up and accounted for by George W. Balloch, late 
disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds. 
Very respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 

Question. What is the next letter which appears in connection with 
this matter ? 

Answer. I have a letter that was received from Brigadier-General 
Howard on the 18th of February, 1874. 

Q. You may read it. 

The Judge- Advocate. I object on the groimd already stated, and 
because from an examination of the letter, which I have in my hands, 
it appears to contain a statement as to facts which would thus improp- 
erly be brought before the court. The matters contained in this letter 
are not evidence, although the accused may see fit to ofl'er them in justi- 
fication, when he makes his defense. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The letter is a part of the same 
transaction. By the rules of evidence many things are admitted as 
part of what the lawyers call the res gesta ; a part of the whole transac- 



313 

tion, in order to comprehend it fully. It is upon that ground we 
claiijp that it is a proper letter to go in evidence here, forming as it does 
one link of this chain of correspondence, having a particular relation to 
dates. We state here, directly to the court, that it is our belief that the 
first intimation the War Department had of this second erroneous 
voucher for the Shepherd account came from General Howard, and that 
the correspondence will show it. 

The Judge-Advocate. That I submit is purely matter of defense, 
not elicited by me in any wise on the direct examination. 

The President. I think the poiut is covered by the former decision 
of the court. Nevertheless, as the objection is renewed, the court will 
be cleared for deliberation. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Will the court allow me to ask 
one question, preliminary in this matter ? 

The President. You may do so. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Is that letter from the files of 
the Third Auditor's Ofiice ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
reopened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced the decision of the court is, that the objection is not 
sustained.] 

The witness read the letter, as follows : 

War Departmknt, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 
Washington, I). ('., February 18, 1874. 
Hou. Allen Rutherford, 

Third Auditor, Treasurji: 
Sir: I am apprehensive th.at I have wronjj;fiilly approved a voucher lately presented 
in accounts to you by General Balloch, in settlement of supplementary account) of ref- 
ugees' and freedmeu's fund, which voucher was a plumbing bill of Alexander R. Shep- 
herd. 

I approved this voucher upon the representation that the same had never been ren- 
dered. I am afraid that his representation was incorrect. Will you kindly cause this 
account of General Balloch to be examined, and if you lind that the same bill of Shep- 
herd's has been accounted for actually before, will you have the kindness to treat my 
approval as a nullity, and have the same erased from such voucher ? 
I am, sir, very respectfully, vonr obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brifiadier-General United States A rmii, 
Late Commissioner Bureau of liefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Is there any indorsement on it I 

Answer. The usual brief of the OfHce ; name and date. 

Question. Was that letter answered ? 

Answer. It was. 

Question. At what date ? 

Answer. On the 24th of February, 1S7I. 

Question. Will you please read the answer ? 

Answer. The answer is as follows : 

Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 

Washington, D. C, February 24, 1874. 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the 18th instant, ni 
which you state that you are apprehensive of having wrongly approved a voucher 
lately presented in the supplementary account of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, for 
October, 1871, being a plumbing bill of A. R. Shepherd &, Co., and requesting that the 
account of Gen. Balloch be re-examined to ascertain whether the same vouchers had 
been allowed before. 

In reply thereto, I have the honor to inform you the accounts referred to have been 
examined, and the voucher approved by you ascertained to have been a duplicate of 



314 

one claimed to have been paid March 24, 1871, and allowed iu a settlenieut of General 
Balloch's accounts for that period ; also that the amount t)f said voucher, ($16,05^.25,) 
has been charged General Balloch upon the books of this Office, of which charge he 
lias been this day ofhcially notified, and requested to account for the same at an early, 
day, either l»y ]»roper vouchers or receipts, or a certiUcate of deposit for the amount 
with the TrcasMrer of the United States. 
Very respectfuUv, 

ALLAN EUTHERFOED, 

Auditor. 
Brig. Gen. O. 0. How aui>, U. S. A., 

Lale Commissioner Bureau R., F. and A. Jy., JVuahingfon, D. ('.] 

Question. What appears to be the next letter in this series ? 
Answer. The notification of the Third Auditor to General Balloch. I 
have a copy here, and also liis reply thereto. 
Question. 1 ask that to be read. 
Answer. It is as follows : 

Trkasuhy Dei-ahtment, Third Auditor's Office, 

Jf'ashiiigton, 1). C, FebrKury 24, 1874. 
Sir : I hav(; the honor to inclose herewith a statement of differences arising in a 
special settlement of your accounts as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedinen and Abandoned Lands, and to call your attention to a statement there- 
in that voucher No. 2, supplementary account-current for October, 1871, amounting to 
f 16,()r)2.2r), h<!retolore passed to your credit in settlement of that account, has been 
debited to you on the books of this Office, it having been discovered sub8e(|uently that 
yon claimed and received credit for the same payment in voucher No. UO, March 24, 
1871, 

Unless you can at an early day present at this Office proper A'ouchers or receipts 
showing the disbursement or transfer of the sum above referred to and now charged 
against you in the books of this Office, yon are re(|uested to deposit this amount with 
the Treasurer of the United States, on account of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedinen 
and Abandoned Lands, and forward the certificate of deposit to this Office. 
Very respectfullv, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD. 
George W. Balloch, Esq., 

Late Dinbaming Officer, Ilnreau B., F. and A. L., fVashinf/fon, D. C. 

The Judge-Advocate. The reply of General Balloch to that is al- 
ready njiou the record of the court, dated February 24, 1874. Exhibit 
A. ' 

(By witness.) The letter is as follows : 

Washington, D. C, February 26, 1874. 

Sir : Referring to your letter of the 24th instant, inclosing a statement of differences 
arising in special settlement of my accounts as chief disbursing officer, Bureau Refu- 
gees, Freedmen and Al)andoned Lands, and calling atteution to statement therein that 
voucher 2, suiiplementary account-current for October, 1871, amounting to |il6,652.2r), 
has been disallowed on the ground that I had already been credited with same amount 
for same payment in voucher 90, March 24, 1871, I have the honor to state that this 
matter has taken me entirely by surprise, and that it will rccjuire some little time for 
me to examine into it, and discover when the mistake; occurred, if any has occurred, 
and expect to be able to explain any discrepancy which may at pn^sent exist. If that 
cannot be done, I stand ready, of course, to make good any sum which may be found 
•due on final settlement of my accounts. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. \V. BALLOCH, 
Late Jlrif). (len., and Chief Dishursiiiij Officer Bureau, ^-c. 
Hon. Allan Rutherfoud, 

'Ihird Auditor, United States Treasury 

Question. NowMr, Cauldvvell, recalling your attention to that letter of 
February 18, where General Howard in<iuired about these vouchers, have 
you seen in the hands of Mr. Moody a letter from General Howard to 
the Secretary of War, of February 17, inforiuiug him of the fact that 
that voucher had been duplicated *? 

A. No, sir. 



815 

Tlie counsel for the accused to the judge-advociUe. Have you that let- 
ter iu your possessiou ? 

The Judcie-Adocate, I liave. 

The Accused, (throuj^h his counsel.) I would like to see it. 

The Judce-Advocate. Is that the letter-press copy ? 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) It is. 

The Judge-Advocate. It is the same letter. 

The President. Is there any objectiou to that letter beiiiff read '? 

The Judge-Advocate. I object to it on the same ground, that I ob- 
jected totheothers. 

The President. Has the witness any personal knowledge of that 
letter ? 

The Accused, (throngh his counsel.) I am free to say in this connec- 
tion that we have been in the hope, and we have not dismissed that 
hope altogether yet, that the affirmative in this investigation would be 
proved so thoroughly as to require no witnesses on the i)art of the neg- 
ative ; that is, that the aftirmative in making out the case would also 
make out a case which accjuits General Howard, so that it would become 
a matter of question, and I give notice of it now, that at the close of 
this testimony on the part of the Government, we will submit to the 
court, unless we are surprised in the testimony yet to come, whether or 
not, upon the testimony i^roduced, General Howard shall be called upon 
to furnish any testimony. 

The President. It will be time enough to meet that question when 
ii arises. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Certainly. 

Question. Have you seen a letter of that date in the hands of any 
person connected with the War Department? [Showing letter-press 
copy.J 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) I wish to be able to connect. 
In the correspondence which you have taken from the files of the Third 
Auditor's Office, what communication appears next iu order ? 

Answer. In reference to this account particularly? 

Question. In reference to this special Shepherd voucher. 

Answer. I have a copy of a letter from the War Department — Secre- 
tary of War to the Secretary of the Treasury — dated February 27. 

Question. It is in your hands officially ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it is a copy of an official document; a certified 
copy made from it. It has sev^eral indorsements, made by diiierent offi- 
cers. 

[The judge-advocate objected to the admission of the letter, on the 
same ground as before. 

The court announced that the letter would be read, under the same 
rule as before. ] 

Answer. It is as follows : 

War Depaht.ment, 

fVdshhit/fon City, February 27, 1H74. 
The Hon. tho Secretary of the Treasury : 

Sir : Iu couuection with the supplementary accouut-cnrrent for October, 1871, vouch- 
ers, &c., rendered to the accounting officers of the Treasury, upon which the sum of 
$19,446.57, realized from interest on certain bonds, was taken up and accounted for by 
Geo. W. Balloch, late disbursing officer. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, copies of which were furnished to me on the Kith of February, 1874, I have tho 
honor to invite attention to the voucher numbered 2 — A. R. Shepherd & Bro., heating 
apparatus, $16,652.25 — which is a duplicate of a voucher upon which said Balloch 
claimed credit iu his accounts for March, 1871, pertaining to the appropriation for sup- 
port of P.ureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



31G 

This fact is admitted by said Ballocl), as I am informed by Brig. Gen. O. 0. Howard, 
United States Army, late Commissioner Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands. 

As regards the other vouchers filed by him, I have to say that it is believed that a 
thorough investigation will prove that they are also false. Those for services of agents 
and clerks cover a period subsequent to date of discharge of the parties named ; and 
lialloch has already submitted statements claiming to have paid the persons named in 
his A'oucher for re-imbursement from other moneys. 

I also desire to invite your attention to correspondence had between the Treasury 
and War Departments in the fall of 1«71, growing out of the discovery of another in- 
vestment of moneys in United States bonds, and to say that, in my opinion, all moneys 
realized as interest on investments of public moneys should be turned into the Treas- 
ury of the United States as a " miscellaneous receipt ;" and that no credit should be 
allowed for disbursements of any character, from said nloneJ^s, unless authorized by 
express statutes. 

As to the moneys realized on the above-mentioned investment, I approved the sug- 
gestion of the Treasury Department, and, on December 6, 1871, directed a payment of 
the amount into the Treasury, as a " miscellaneous leceipt." It seems that a compliance 
was not had with said directions. I also, on the 11th instant, directed Brig. Gen.O. O. 
Howard, United States Army, to deposit, at once, with the Treasurer of the United 
States — if not properly accounted for — the mouey realized on the $300,000 bonds, cur- 
rency 6s. If my orders have not been complied with, and the amount deposited, I 
have to request that immediate steps be taken to recover the same, as well as the 
amount involved in the transaction above mentioned. 

The records of the War Department will be open for the inspection or use of any 
otJicer of your Department to whom you may intrust the matter. 
Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 



[Indorseiuent No. 1. 



Treasury Dki'artment, 

March .5, 1874. 



Respectfully referred to the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, for such action as 
he may deem proper. 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 

[ IiKloisemcut No. 2.J 

Second CoMrTUOLLEu's Office, 

March 6, 1874. 

Respectfully referred to the Tbii'd Auditor for investigation and report. 

.J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Comptroller. 
[Indorsement No. 3.] 

Treasury Departaiknt, Third Auditor^s Office, 

March 17, 1874, 

Respectfully returned to the Second Comptroller, with the information that the sup- 
plementary accounts for October, 1871, referred to within, were, during the past 
mouth, re-examined in this office, in connection with the former accounts rendered by 
(Jeorge W. Balloch, late chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lands, and the voucher referred to herein ascertained to have been a dupli- 
cate, and the amount thereof ($16,652.25) debited him on the books of this office, per 
settlement No. 8327, February 24, 1874 ; and upon the same date he was called upon to 
account for the amonut, as per copy of letter herewith, to which no reply has as yet 
been received. No further evidence of double payments was discovered, but should 
any be ascertained in subsequent re-examinations, the amounts thereof will at once 
be reported to you, as was the case in the Shepherd voucher. 

In his supplementary account-current for October, 1871, Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. 
Balloch accounts for the intei-est received from $300,000 "currency 6s." It is pre- 
sumed this is the same interest which the Secretary of War states he directed Briga- 
dier-General Howard to deposit, on the 11th of February, 1874, " if not properly 
accounted for," as no evidence of General Howard's having deposited said interest 
appears upon the books of the Treasury. 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Third Auditor. 

(Indorsement No. 4 separate.) 



317 

[Indorsement No. 5.] 

Treasury Dei'ARTMknt, March 17, 1874. 
Respectfully referred to the Third Auditor, who will please furnish me with th« 
detailed items embraced in the snnis of $1,;{38.56 and .f l,4.5.5.7(i, mentioned in the within 
indorsement of the Second Comptroller, and inform me whether he is satisfied thiit the 
same items have not also been charged in some of the other accounts rendered by Gen- 
eral Balloch, as was the case in the "Shepherd"' voucher. 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Seci-etarij. 

[Indoisement Ko. 6.] 

Third Auditor's Oi'i'icf;, 

March 21, 187 1. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of the Treasury with a copy of the voucher 




have not heretofore been charged in the accounts on tile in this Office. 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 

[Indorsement No. 4. | 

Respectfully returned with the papers to the honorable Secretary of the Treasury. 

In addition to this letter and the remarks indorsed by the Third Auditor upon the 
copy of the letter from the Secretary of War, dated February 27, 1874, I would state 
that the bond account of General Balloch stands thus : 

Paid for .|:?00,000, currency sixes, including premium and interest account, 

brokerage, and express charges $330, 567 20 

Received for same, iucluding premium and interest 356, 013 77 

Gain iy,446 57 

Paid Shepherd & Bros, bill $16,652 25 

Paid Balloch re-imbursements of money paid wrong parties ... 1, 338 56 
I'aid agents, clerks, stationery, and printing 1, 455 76 

^ ' J> 1 « 19,446 57 

The circumstances under which the investment was made were these: The joint 
resolution of March 2, 1867, (15 Stat., 26,) made the Commissioner of the Freedmon's 
Bureau the payee of adjudicated accounts for pay, bounty, prize-money, and other 
moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, or marines in former slave States, and the Treasury 
certificates paid on these accounts were payable to General Howard, who drew the 
money from the disbursing officer, the latter being credited in his account by General 
Howard's receipts. 

Early in 1870 — I think al)ont the last of January — General Howard called on me and 
said that funds accumulated in his hands from their payments to him, aud wished to 
know if there was any legal or other objection to his investing the money wliile look- 
ing up the beneficiaries. 

My reply was, in substance, that the case was an anomalous one, but that there was 
no law which forbid the payee of an adjudicated and settled account from investing 
the proceeds, and that the laws in regard to investment of public funds by disbursing 
officers, especially the acts of August 6, 1846, (9 Stat., 63,) and June 14, 1866, (14 Stat., 
64,) did not apply in this case, and that he might legally and properly invest the 
money in United States bonds, deposit them in the Treasury and account for the 
interest. I am of the same opinion now that I was then. General Howard informed 
me that he had consulted with General Spinner, who concurred in this view of the 
law, and favored the investment. 

Under these circumstances was the interest a " miscellaneous receipt" in the meaning 
of the act of March 3, 1849, (9 Stat., 398,) which should be covered into the Treasury 
under that head, as requested by the Secretary of War ? 

The accounting officers will conform, of course, to the construction of the cited laws 
that may be adopted by the head of this Department. 

J. 51. BRODHEAD, Compfrolkr. 

Second Comptroller's Office, 

March 10, 1874. 



318 

Question. Are you familiar with the act of July 12, 1870? 

Answer. 1 have read it a number of times. I know what the act pur- 
ports to be. 

(Question. At what time was that act put in force in the Third Audi- 
tor's Oftice ? 

The Judge- Advocate. 1 object to the question on the same grounds 
as before. 

The Accused, (throu<i:li his counsel.) I have no objection to the 
judge-advocate cross-examining' tlie witness as to any new matter I 
may elicit. 

Tlie President. Enter of record the fact that the accused yields the 
point claimed by the judge advocate, and that he may rebut the tes- 
timony of this witness as though he were a witness with the defense. 

The AccjusED, (through his counsel.) I do not propose to ask any 
question upon any new matter, but to confine my question entirely to 
matters which have already been brought out in the testimony, but 
what I said was that 1 had no objection to his cross-examining this wit- 
ness to any extent. 

The President. We understand that this witness is subject to 
close and searching cross-examination as to any evidence he himself has 
given in the course of this trial ; bat you could not cross-examine hirn 
on ])oints made by other witnesses. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) It makes just this difference 
])ractically : if we cease in our cross-examination now, the court may 
take the witness in hand and ask him all manner of questions, and then 
we could proi»erly come in with our questions after that as to new mat- 
ter brought out by the court directly. 

The President. That is a risk you take. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) 1 do not want it to appear upon 
the record of these proceedings that I consent that this witness may be 
im])eached. 

The President. Ife cannot be impeached, but his evidence may be 
rebutted by other evidence on the pai x of the court, upon the evidence 
you adduce. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The point I wish to draw out 
from this witness is, that the Adjutant-General's Office, or a branch of 
the Adjutant-General's Office, interested themselves very warmly in the 
investigation of all papers, and the examination of all papers in the 
Third Auditor's Office, and it is proper for me to say now, that we think 
we have the right to show in any way the motives which prompted 
these ac(;usations, and to show those motives from the action of partic- 
ular parties. In that view of the matter, it is, I suppose, entirely new 
matter. Upon any new matter we have not the slightest objection to the 
fullest cross-examination of this witness ; but, as I said before, we do 
not wish to put him in the jjosition where his veracity may be attacked 
by any one. 

The President. You have the cross-examination of the witness ? 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) At present, yes. 

The President. And that cross-examination would be limited strictly 
to matters drawn out on the direct examinaticm. 1 rather think that 
as to the new matter you suggest, it is rather more than you ought to 
expect to prove by a witness brought here by the affirmative ; still, if 
you wish to utilize the witness, and take advantage of the opportunity 
of his being on tiie stand and thus save time, 1 will submit the question 
to the court with ])leasure. It being the pleasure of the court, the 
counsel may proceed with his examination until checked by the court. 



319 

Of course, as to all new matter which he may elicit, tbejiidgeadvocate 
will have the right to cross-examiue the witness. 

Question. At what time was that act put in force in the Third Auditor's 
Othce, (July 12, 1870?) 

Answer. Well, sir, it was substantially put in full operation in the 
office of the Third Auditor of the Treasury during the latter part 
of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, and not until then — not 
until after the issuance of General Order No. 08, November 4, 1871, by 
the Secretary of War, relating to (Quartermaster-General's accounts. 
There was also one issued at that time, issued in relation to both 
quartermasters and commissaries. 

On motion the court, at 3 o'clock and 10 minutes p. m., adjourned until 
Friday morning, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washmfjton, D. C, April 17, 1874—11 o'clock a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Pr extent. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S, A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, tl. S. A. ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge advocate ; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel, were present. 

So much of the minutes of the 20th day as had not been read were 
then read and a|)proved. 

The minutes of the 27th day were then read and api)ioved. 

Andrew Cauldwell, a former witness, Avas present and heard his testi- 
mony read, and i)ronounced it to be correct as recorded. 

The Judge-Advocate said : I desire to ask the court whether I am 
to have the opi)ortunity of cross-examining Mr. Cauldwell with refer- 
ence to those papers that he introduced here at the last meeting. 

The President. Certainly; that is the understanding. 

The Judge-Advooate. I would also ask the accused, through the 
court, whether he desires to continue the examination of Mr. Cauldwell 
this morning upon new matter for the defense. 

The President. The question is a proper one. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) What we i)ropose to prove by 
Mr. Cauldwell, may it please the court, is the course of procedure on 
the part of the Adjutant-General's Office, particularly on the part of 
Major Vincent, of that office, in searching into the accounts of General 



320 

Balloch, General Howard, and Major Browu, in the Third Auditor's 
Office, and the correspondence that sprang up through that search and 
in consequence of an attempt by the Secretary of War to induce the 
Secretary of the Treasury to re-open these accounts. That matter I 
admit is new matter, but we claim the right to put it in on this ground. 
It belongs to the transaction, a i)art of which has been already intro- 
duced by the Government; and in addition to that, taking the opinion 
of -ludge Thurman, United States Senator from Ohio, who is very emi- 
nent as a lawyer, which opinion I have read, as published in the news- 
papers; he declares explicitly the law in regard to investigations to be 
that any person has a right to ask of any witness any sort of question, 
the answer to which is calculated to throw light upon the subject-matter. 

The Judge- Advocate. If the court please, ag the accused, through 
his counsel, admits that the examination is upon new matter, I suggest 
that the more orderly course would be for me to go on with my wit- 
nesses, and when the proper time arrives for his defense or justification 
for him then to bring up his witnesses in reference to the matter he has 
just alluded to. I would say further that when he does do so 1 may 
have some serious legal objection to present to the attention of the 
court as to an examination to ascertain the facts that he says he can 
elicit. At present I have my witnesses subpoenaed in court and am ready 
to proceed with my case, and I will only invite the attention of the 
court to a coui)le of rulings bearing upon this subject. 

The Supreme Court of the United States considers the rule of evi- 
dence to be now well established that " a party has no right to cross- 
examine any witness excei)t as to facts and circumstances connected 
with matters stated in his direct examination ; and that if he wishes to 
examine him as to other matters he must do so by making the witness 
his own and calling him as such in the subsequent progress of the 
cause." That was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States in the case of the Philadelphia and Trenton Kailroad Company 
against Stimpson, (14 Peters, 448 and 4G1.) 

In Greenleaf on Evidence, (vol. 1, section 447, last (I2th) edition,) this 
language is used : 

A party, however, who has not opened his owu case will uot be allowed to iutro- 
dviced it to the jury by cross-exaniiiiing the witnesses of the adverse party, though, 
after opening it, he may recall them for that purpose. 

EUmaker vs. Bulkley, IG Sergeant & Eawle, 77 : (1 Starkie on Evi- 
dence, 104.) 

Such being the rule of law, I respectfully submit that I may be 
allowed to go on and close my case as speedily as possible ; and, as the 
witnesses are almost identically the same on both sides, and all resident 
here and can be summoned at a short notice and without expense to the 
(iovernment, that the defense be postponed until such time as the 
accused has a right to enter upon it. 

The Pkesident. 1 agree with the judge-advocate that it will facilitate 
our in(juiry if we restrict the defenseat this timesomewhat, promising the 
accused at the proper time the greatest latitude possible in presenting his 
defense, and all the power of the court in summoning witnesses, in forcing 
their attendance, and in requiring their answers to such questions as he 
may desire to be put. But at this time Ave think the business of the court 
will be facilitated by adiiering a little closer to the ordinary rules of 
evidence, allowing the judge-advocate to establish his affirmative by 
his own witnesses in his own waj\ 

The AcnusED, (through his counsel.) Before the court decides the 



321 

question, 1 would like to have the opportunity of saying a word or two 
in reterence to the authority cited by the judge-ad vo(;ate. I wish to say 
that since Greenleaf died there has been that change in the character or 
habits of men that investigations have become a part of the law. Tliey 
were unknown to him ; he has not written upon them or in view of 
them. The law in relation to investigations is a new matter; it has not 
been treated by Greenleaf at all, and it is, as I before stated, all through 
an informal nmtter, having in view from the beginning to the end but 
one thing, and tljat is to elicit the truth. 

The Judge-Advocate. I desire to invite the attention of the court to 
the order it made some time ago as governing my action, somewhat to 
the etfect that there was an affirmative and a negative side to this case. 
It is true, as the gentleman says, that the desire of this court is to 
investigate and arrive at the truth ; and that is the desire of all courts 
of justice. And courts of inquiry have been as long established as this 
Government, and have been regular judicial tril)unals, differing from 
investigating committees, such as those instituted by Congress, which 
are legislative committees, and not judicial. This is a judicial body. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced: The decision of the court is, that the objection of the 
judge-advocate to examine the witnesses at this time on new matter is 
sustained, leaving full liberty to the accused when entering on his de- 
fense to present such legal evidence to the court as he may desire. 

The Accused, (through his counsel,) stated that he understood that 
Colonel James B. Fry was present as a witness from a distance, and was 
anxious to leave the city as soon as possible. He had no objection to 
his being called and examined at this time, 

James B. Fry was then duly sworn, in the presence of the accused, 
and testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, business, and station. 

Answer. Lieutenant Colonel James B. Fry, assistant adjutant general ; 
stationed in New York City. 

Question. During the late rebellion of 1861-G5 what rank and position 
did you hold in the Army, if any 1 

Answer. I held the othce of provost-marshalgeneral, with the rank of 
colonel, and subsequently that of brigadier-general. 

Question. During the time that you were provost-marshal-general, 
were you, or any ofticer under you, required to disbnrse public moneys? 

Answer. Officers under me were so required. 

Question. Will you please state to the coiirt fully, and in your own 
language, the modus operandi of disbursing the public funds, and the 
general mode of transacting the business in your bureau with reference 
to that subject ; state the sources of the funds that came into your 
hands, and how they were disposed of, and how they were accounted 
for, and what the responsibility was, and to whom it attached, &c. 

Answer. There were two funds under my control. The first Avas what 
was known as the commutation fund, arising from the money paid by 
drafted men to secure exemption from military service ; the other was a 
fund appropriated by Congress known as the fund for collecting, or- 
ganizing, and drilling volunteers. The tirst of these funds was, as I 
stated, by drafted men to secure exemption, each dratted man paying 
$300 for that purpose, if he elected to do so. The law required that 
21 H C 



322 

this money should be paid to such persons as the Secretary of War 
mijilit designate to receive it. The Secretary of War directed that to be 
paid to nie. 

By the Court : 

Question. The Provost Marshal-General 1 

Answer. The Provost Marshal-General, under such regulations as I 
might prescribe. Under arrangements made hy me the money was 
l)aid to the collectors of internal revenue, and by them deposited to my 
credit in the nearest designated depository of the Treasury. This cre- 
ated a fund of some tifteen millions of dollars that stood to n)y credit, 
without any appropriation or any other act of Congress than the law 
under which it accumulated. I made myself responsible to the Treasury 
for this fund by making a regular return of it to the Treasury Depart- 
ment. The same law that authorized the creation of the fund made 
substantially an appropriation of it by designating that it should be dis- 
bursed for the procuration of substitntes for the men who paid it, and 
for other purposes of the draft. I did not disburse the money directly 
myself, but still, being" responsible for it, I designated four of my subor- 
dinates as disbursing officers of the fund, and turned over, from time 
to time, to them such amounts as I found they required. They used 
the fund and made formal returns of it; and I also made a general return 
to the Treasury for the Mhole of it. 

Question. Using their receipts as your vouchers '? 

Answer. Using their receipts as my vouchers — they were the only 
vouchers I used. 1 had no vouchers in detail at all. This continued 
until the session of Congress subsequent to the creation of this fund, 
when an act was passed requiring that this fund should be turned into 
the Treasury of the United States, although the purpose for which it was 
accumulated was not changed. That terminated my personal connec- 
tion with the fund, and requisitions were made upou it for the same dis- 
bursement, but the recpiisitions were made in favor of the officers who 
had disbursed the money, there being four of them, and all stationed 
in Washington, the disbursing bureau. There were four such officers — 
four divisions of them. These four disbursing officers were directed to 
pay all the accounts incurred by provost-marshals, and under regula- 
tions that were made specifically for that purpose. The provost-mar- 
shals in the different congressional districts of the United States were 
authorized to incur indebtedness for specified i)urposes, and prepare the 
formal accounts, certify them, and send them to these four disbursing 
officers in Washington for payment. Before paid, the accounts were 
examined, and, if found correct, they were paid by checks drawn on the 
nearest depository in favor of the persons to whom the money was 
due, aud the check sent to the provost-marshal for delivery to the 
creditor. 

Question. The vouchers were receipted before paid I 

Answer. Receipted before paid. They were receipted and then sent 
up by the provost-marshal. The practice with the provost-marshals 
was to give a memorandum-receipt to the person who delivered the 
voucher, aud to acknowledge the receipt of the check from me for the 
payment of that voucher. They were acknowledged always in gross to 
me; the disbursing oiiicer took charge of them. These four disbursing* 
officers kept their accounts in the Treasury of the United States in the 
same manner as other disbursing officers did. I believe that is all upon 
that point. Checks were sent out by disbursing officers in favor of the 
claimj^uts, and sent through the provost-marshal. The provost-marshals 



323 

were made the agents between the claimants and the Bureau in Wash- 
ington. 

Question. You mean the supervision of the marshals of the district ? 

Answer; Yes, sir ; there was one in each congressional district. 

Question. Were they all commissioned officers of the Army? 

Answer. Tliey were all appointed under the act of Congress; they 
were not commissioned, properly speaking, as they were not confirmed 
by the Senate. 

Question. Were they appointed by you or the Secretary of War f 

Answer. They were appointed by the Secretary of War. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. When you sent out a batch of checks to a provost-marshal, 
meanwhile having the receipts, the vouchers receipted, and he acknowl- 
edged the receipt of that batch of checks, how soon after did you ren- 
der an account to the Treasury claiming credit for the disbursement of 
that amount of money ? 

Answer. The accounts were rendered in the usual periodical way pre- 
scribed by the regulations. I do not know that my memory serves me 
so as to answer the question more correctly than tliat. I can say there 
was very little delay in rendering accounts from the fact that the ac- ■ 
counts were really audited before they were paid. The accounts were 
sent up here for examination, and were passed upon as correct or incor- 
rect before any checks were sent out ; and when we determined the 
accounts were proper ones for payment, the money was sent out and 
[)aid at once, and the vouchers were sent in at the regular periodical 
times, monthly or quarterly. 

Question. Have you any knowledge whether, at any time, those re- 
ceipted vouchers had been tiled in the Treasury and credit claimed 
therefor, when, in point of fact, the checks to nmke those payments 
were still in the hands of the provost-marshal and not delivered to the 
parties in wliose favor they were drawn ? If so, state . 

Answer. I have no recollection of any such case arising. There were 
a few cases, J remember, in which checks were not called for at all, and 
in which the amounts covered by the checks were subsequently covered 
into the Treasury-. There were a few cases of that sort. 

Question. The vouchers having been put in 1 

Answer. Yes; accounts were put in. The accounts were made, and 
afterwards it was found that the checks were never called for. There 
were two or three cases of that sort that were ascertained by the settle- 
ment of the Treasury with the depository, and there were two or three 
cases. There were a few cases of that sort; I do not remember how 
many ; ver}' few. 

Question. What did you do under those circumstances ? 

Answer. We found tliere was a surplus to the credit of the disbursing 
officers, and that was covered into the Treasury, as we call it. 

Question. Do you know whether or not, when you found this surplus, 
that the vouchers had been filed with the Treasury cla iming credit for 
the amount I 

Answer. I do not know the fact, but I have no doubt they had been. 

Question. Do you know whether or not those vouchers were then 
canceled in the Treasury ? 

Answer. I should suijpose not; I do not know. The covering of the 
money into the Treasury was the process for setting the matter right. 

Question. Who was held responsible by the Treasury for the disburs- 
ing of these moneys ? 



324 

Answer. The four disbursing officers. 

Question. What responsibility attached to the provost-marshals act- 
ing as agents, if anj- ? 

Answer. All the responsibility tliat belongs to an officer who certifies 
an account as correct. 

Cross-examined by the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Did these disbursing officers give bonds I 

Answer. They did not. 

Question. I understood you to say that they received the signed 
vouchers before they paid them. 

Answer. Yes, they did. 

Question. And that you had offices under you in every congressional 
district of the United States'^ 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. Of course you had them in Oregou and California? 

Answer. Well, I should have made some limitation to that answer. 
There were some places on the Pacific coast where the offices were not 
really filled. 

By the Court : 
Question. You had one in San Francisco? 

Answer. Yes, in San Francisco, but I think in Oregon we did not fill 
the offices ; that is my recollection. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Then suppose one of your disbursing officers here sent otf 
checks on the last of May to be delivered by the assistant provost- mar- 
shal, or whatever his title would be, in San Francisco, would he put 
those payments into his accounts for May ? 

Answer. Well, I believe he did, but I won't say positively. My im- 
pression is that he put them in when he had sent off the check, and he 
passed upon the voucher as correct before he sent the check. 

Question. Then his habit, in a few words, was this : to first receive 
the voucher receipted, then examine into the accuracy of it, and 
Avhether it was properly payable or not, then to send off his check in 
payment for it, and then to take credit for the voucher? ' 

Answer. Yes, that is the process substantially. 

By the Court : 

Question. Did you consider it necessary to assure yourself that the 
checks for the payment of vouchers were actually in the hands of the 
claimants before the money credit was taken at the Treasury for the 
vouchers which those checks were sent to pay ? 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. What, if any, loss did the United States or the claimants 
sustain, through the action of your Bureau 1 

Answer. I have no recollection of any loss to either party, except in 
the few instances that I have referred to — the unclaimed checks, and 
they were for very small amounts. 

Question. Had you been obliged to pay in currency, instead of checks, 
would, or would not, your duties have been more difficult, and the chance 
of loss to claimants increased "? 

Answer. I will say in answer to that that they would have been more 
difiicult, and the chances would have been increased. In fact, I think 
the success I met with in making payments was mainly due to the fact 



325 

that I could pay by checks, and not give to the provost-marshals money 
to disburse, but make tliera agents for the delivery of checks payable to 
somebody else's order. 

Question. Did you ever make au official report of the manner of ad- 
ministering your Bureau? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. Where can the court find an authentic copy of the report '! 

Answer. There is a copy here ; I have a copy here. 

Question. Describe it : give the title so that the court may refer to it. 

Answer. It is marked, " Final re[)ort made to the Secretary of War, 
by the Provost-Marshal-General, and the operations of the Bureau of 
tiie Provost-Marshal-General of the United States, from the commence- 
ment of the business of the Bureau, March 17, 1803, to March 17, ISfK;.'' 
The Bureau terminated bylaw August 28, 1866. The report was i)ublished 
at the Government Printiug-Offi(;e. 

Question. Is it a i)ubli(; document ? 

Answer. Yes ; a public docunu^.nt. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 
Question. It accompanied the President's communication to Congress I 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In the winter of 1865-1866? 

Answer. Yes, sir. The pages which discuss the accounts are from 
page 94 to page 9!), with references. 

By the Court : 

Question. Which report you affirm now ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I adopt those images as a part of my testimony. 

Question. Was the Provost-Marshal -General's Bureau a tem})orary or 
a permanent branch of the War Department ? 

Answer. It was, by the terms of thela\v, permanent. 

Question. But it was actually concluded by statute ? 

Answer. It was concluded by statute, in 1806. 

(Question. Did you, or any of the officers serving under you, give 
bonds for the faithful disbursement of the public money! 

Arjswer. We did not. 

Question. Please give the names and stations of your particular dis- 
bursing officers. 

Answer. There were four disbursing offices, as I have stated. They 
were occupied from time to time by Capt. James Curtis, Capt. H. ('lay 
W()od,/3apt. H. B. Hendershott, Capt. F. H. Barrett, Capt. James J^Ic- 
Millan, Capt. Samuel Dana, Capt. Ki(5hard Loder, Capt. H. E. Bathburn, 
Capt. J. McL. Hildt. 

(Question. All statioued in W^ashington"? 

Answer. All stationed in Washington at one time or another. The four 
places were kept filled. 

Qiu^stion. W^ere you held officially responsible that all the public 
money was properly disbursed by these subordinate officers I 

Answer. I understood I was officially resfionsible for their good 
behavior in reference to the disbursement of money, the same as for any 
other of their duties under me. 

(Question. Did you have unfaithful or dishonest agents; and, if so, 
what action was taken by you or by the Government ? 

Answer. I had a number of unfaithful agents; they were proceeded 
against and punished in a variety of ways. I don't remember the cases. 
There was no case in which the unfaithful agent was not proceeded 
against in a legal form. 



326 

Question. By the Department of Justice or the military courts'? 

Answer. In both ways. , 

Question. And in case of alleged frauds on the ])art of assistant pro- 
vost-marshals in the several congressional districts, or uon-delivery of 
checks sent them, who was held responsible for the money thus lost to 
claimants ? 

Answer, There were a few instances in Avhich there were unclaimed 
checks, a few instances in which vouchers were presented and approved, 
and the checks to pay them were sent out and never called for; then 
they would be returned by the i)rovost-marshal into whose hands they 
had passed, and when unclaimed they came back. The claimants, of 
course, lost those, but they were exceptional cases; they were very few. 

[Last question repeated.] 

Answer. Well, the money was not lost to the claimants. 

Question. In case there had been alleged a uon-delivery of a check, 
who would have been held responsible 1 

Answer. The money was gained to the Government ; covered into the 
Treasury. 

Question. In case frauds . had been alleged ou the part of assistant 
provost-marshals in the several congressional districts, or non-delivery 
of checks, who would have been held responsible for money thus lost to 
claimants, in your judgment? 

Answer. We would have held the provost-marshal responsible if the 
fraud resulted from his non-delivery of the check. 

Question. Would any one beside the officer charged with fraud have 
been held responsible in such case ? 

Answer. I think not. 

By the Judge- Advocate, (through the court:) 

Question. What description of officers were these four disbursing 
officers"^ You state you had four officers in Washington to disburse at 
the same time. Please state the description of officers they were "? 

Answer, They were commissioned officers of the line of the Army. 

Question. Ot the regular service or the volunteer service ? 

Answer. Eegular service. 

Andrew Cauldwell then resumed the stand, aud his cross-examina- 
tion was contiuued by the accused, through his counsel. 

Question. Mr. Cauldwell, you testified in chief to certain vouchers pro- 
duced by you, and abstracts aud accounts-current connected with them ; 
were those accounts-current approved by auj" one ? 

Answer. IsTo, sir. 

Question. Aud those accounts-current represented, during the mouths 
of January and February, 1871, the actual amount standing to the 
credit of that fund against which they were properly chargeable, if I 
recollect aright? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; that is my recollection. 

Question. And the account-current for March took up a certain war 
warrant for $127,000. In whose favor was that warrant drown ? 

Answer. In lavor of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief dis- 
bursing officer Freed men's Bureau. 

Question. Were the preceding war- warrants like that? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And the subse(juent ones ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. The money was placed directly to the credit of 



327 

General Balloch on the books of our office, on a requisition drawn by 
the Secretary of War. 

Question. At the time this settlement was made in your office had 
the act of July 12, 1870, been put in use in your office, or in practice '1 

Answer. The settleuieut of those accountsfor Marcli, do you refer to ? 

Question. For January, February, ami March, 1871 ? 

Answer. No, sir ; it had not. 

Question. In the constructions of your office was there, or is there, 
anytliing irregular about that account ? 

The Judge- Advocate. I object to the question, on the ,o;round that 
it is askinj;' the opinion of the witness on a question of law, which he is 
not con!i)etent to answer, and also on the around that it does not yet 
appear that any construction was given to the matter in the Tliird Au- 
ditor's Office. If tliere was, the Third Auditor is the proper person to 
prove it by. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The statement of the judge- 
advocate, may it please the court, is a very excellent and proi)er state- 
ment, but it don't apply to the (juestion. I do not ask the witness his 
opinion of the law; I ask him what was the construction made in his 
office ; not by hiui ; simply the fact, if there was any construction, what 
that construction was. 

[The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being ]>resent, the judge-advocate an- 
nounced as the decision of the court that the objection is not sustained.] 

[Question repeated.] 

Answer. I would say that there was no objection raised to the man- 
ner of the rendition of the account at the time. It was examined, and 
my cons ruction, or at least my opinion of the matter 

(The Judge- Advocate objected.) 

The Witness. Do you wish my opinion f 

By the Court : 
Question. In the practice of your office was that account regular ? 
Answer. Yes, sir; so considered at the time, and so considered now. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Has it happened frequently in your office that accounts have 
been rendered a very long- time after they have been actually paid ? 

Answer. Very frequently. 

Question. How long a time, if you remember! 

Answer. In some cases covering six, seven, eight, and ten years — 
that is, a single voucher or a few vouchers probably found by an officer 
who had mislaid them, or something of that sort. 

Question. I will ask you whether or not your office deals with accounts 
at the time of actual filing, and fixes their status by the actual time of 
filing. 

Answer. Well, I do not clearly get the meaning of your question. 

Question. I will repeat it in anotlier form : whether it made any diffi^'- 
ence in the construction of your office whether the accounts had been in 
fact paid before the month in which the vouchers were filed or iu)t. 

The Judge- Advocate. I submit to the court that the proper person 
to answer these questions is the Third Auditor himself. 

The President. Still, if the witness can answer, he may do so, and 
his answer will go for what it is worth. He seems to be a very couq^e- 
tent person. 

Question. Before he answers that quesj:ion I will ask him another : 



328 

whether the whole subject of these accounts is iu his hands, subject to 
the supervision of the Auditor. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The PRESIDENT. The witness, therefore, is here in the character of an 
expert. 

The Witness. I aiu what is called chief clerk, or chief of subsistence 
division, Third Auditor's Office. It is really the commissary division, of 
which I have been ciiief for ten years. I have been iu the office twelve 
years, and have had under my supervision the settlement of the Bureau 
accounts. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. I will ask whether, as a matter of fact, you passed upon all 
these matters of account, and referred oidy to the Third Auditor in un- 
usual cases? 

Answer. That is the fact. 

Question. Now, state whether it made any difference in the construc- 
tion of your office whether the accounts had been iu fact paid, before the 
month in which the vouchers were filed or not. 

Answer. It made no particular difference — I might add, as long as the 
vouchers themselves were proper, chargeable to any particular appro- 
priation, and in proi)er shape. 

(Question. Would the same answers you have given relate to the bal- 
ance of the account running up to July 22, 1871 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. I understand that I am basing my answers on the 
fact that the law of July 12, 1870, was not in effect at the time the set- 
tlement of those accounts took place. Tlie action is somewhat different 
now. 

Question. Yes, it was precisely iu view of that law that the questions 
have all been asked. In the construction of your office, in the render- 
ing of that account, has there been any violation of law ? 

The JuDciE- Advocate. I object, and I submit to the court, with all 
respect, that the questions now being asked are improper, as rhey are 
not in the nature of a cross-examination as to matter elicited by me on 
the direct examination. The accused, through his counsel, has during 
the progress of the case indulged in a line of cross-examination of all 
my witnesses utterly at variance with my conception of the rules of evi- 
dence, and I again protest against it, and ask the court that those rules 
may be strictly enforced. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The matter takes the form of a 
personal accusation. Now, the witness-m-chief was brought here to 
l^rove those very accounts and those very vouchers, and when they were 
proved they were in the i)ossession of the court, and I had the right to 
ask any question iu relation to them. I have so far confined myself 
stri<*tly to a proper cross-examination upon the very nmtter introduced 
by the judge-advocate since the expression of the sense of the court 
that we must not take up new matter ; if I have not, 1 hope the court 
will stop me. I withdraw the last question. 

Question. Have all the items named in the account referred to been 
settled in the account of General Balloch ? 

Answer. They have. 

Question. Has he received an acquittance of the accounting officers 
of tije Treasury therefor ? 

Answer. He has ; that is, from the Third Auditor. That is the usual 
form. The Second Comptroller never gives a certificate of non-indebt- 
edness 5 the Third Auditor does. 



329 

Question. He has received the usual certificate of acquittance ? 

Answer. So far as those accounts are concerned, yes, sir. We call it 
a certificate of non-indebtedness. 

Question. I mean a formal discharge from accountability. 

Answer. Yes, sir. You understand my last answer to be in regard to 
that particular account. 

Question. My question was confined to this account. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Cross-examined by the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Have you with you the subpoena duces tecum which you 
received from me f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Will you please read what that subptena required you to 
bring f 

Answer. " Please bring the accounts and vouchers of General George 
W. Balloch, late chief disbursing officer. Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu 
and Abandoned Lands, from January 1, 1871, to July 31, 1871, per- 
taining to the appropriation." 

Question. How did you come to bring with you those letters and doc- 
uments which you introduced on your cross-examination ? 

Answer, The Third Auditor of the Treasury, uj)on the receipt of that 
subptena, notified me of it, aiul we came over and saw you in relation to 
the matter, as to when we would likely be called upon. He had applied 
for, and received from the Secretary of the Treasury, a leave of absence 
for two weeks to go to i^orth Carolina, and started off the next morn- 
ing, and told me, in order to be prepared for any questions that might 
arise in my examination, to bring with me all the correspondence we 
had on the subject-matter before the court, and I did so ; brought them 
here and had them in my possession every day since I have been in 
court. 

Question. Y)o you recollect whether you said anything to me on the 
subject of those communications? 

Answer. My impression is I did not. I was prepared to introduce 
anything you asked me for that I had, of course. 

Question. In a document which you introduced in your cross-exami- 
nation by the accused, through his counsel, you say there is an item of 
$l,33S.oG, which it is stated was an item in the account rendered by 
General Balloch to the Third Auditor? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. The Third Auditor, in reply to the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, in indorsement N'o. G, of March 21, 1874, says that he sends to him 
a copy of the vouchers embracing the item of $1,338.56 ; do you know 
where that voucher is, or what it refers to"? 

Answer. I have a certified copy of it. [Producing paper.] 

Question. Did this accompany General Balloch's account-current? 

Answer. The original did his supplementary account-current for Octo- 
ber, 

Question. This is a copy of one of the originals you handed me yes- 
terday ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Uo you recollect what the requisitions were for, which you 
say were drawn by the Secretary of War in favor of General Balloch ? 

Answer. For the appropriations as passed by Congress; I, of course, 
do not remember the wording of them exactly. 

Question. Were any of them for bounties ? 



330 

Answer. Not in our office ; there never was any requisition that I knew 
of for bounties. The bounty-money was paid by the pay department to 
General Howard or his representative, as I understand it, by act of 
Congress so authorizing it. 

Question. You said it made no particular difference when an officer 
rendered his accounts for payment, or words to tliat effect. 

Answer. Well, substantially ; that, of course, I might qualify by say- 
ing within a reasonable tiuie. The law requires that an officer shall 
render his accounts within ten days, but that is utterly impossible in 
most cases, as every officer knows. We give them a reasonable time. 

Question. Do you know what the Third Auditor considers to be that 
"reasonable time V 

Answer. I am not aware of any particular construction upon that par- 
ticular poiut ; sometimes officers render tbem in very unreasonable time. 
We are not very hard upon them. They are received, as you are aware, 
through the heads of the Bureaus of the War Department. They use 
all due diligence, I have no doubt, to get the officers to render the 
accounts, and we think it rather extra-judicial to write direct to the 
officers in regard to the matter, although we do sometimes. 

Question. Do you know whether this account of General Balloch for 
that interest sum was rendered through the head of any Bureau of the 
War Department f 

Answer. It was rendered direct to our office, as was the custom of 
General Balloch in renderiug his accounts. Ofcourse the abstracts bear 
the approval of General Howard, showing he liad made an examination 
and had supervision of the accounts the same as other Bureau officers or 
heads of Bureaus. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. With regard to that account-current for interest, was there 
a communication from the Secretary of the Treasury which came upon 
the flies of the Third Auditor's Office ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; there was. 

Question. If you have that communication I would like to have it 
read to the court. 

The Judge- Advocate. I object, on tlie ground that this is new mat- 
ter, and the court decided this morning that the accused must wait 
until the case is with him before he undertakes to prove his defense. 

The President. I think the rule we established yesterday will apply 
to this inquiry. We are not tied down by any strict rules of evidence. 
It is our desire and intention to get at the truth, and if there is anything 
in the letter which bears upon the question under investigation, I am 
certain it comes within our ruling of yesterday, and I so declare it. You 
may read the letter. 

The Witness. I think I read the letter yesterday regarding that very 
matter. 

Question. The letter of January 24, 1874 ? 

Answer, I have that letter. That is in reference to General Balloch's 
other accounts. 

Question. Not this interest-account ? 

Answer. Not this interest-account. 

The Judge-Advocate. I only questioned the witness as to the inter- 
est-account, and the propriety of my objection is now evident. 

The Witness. The letter refers to the accounts which the counsel ques- 
tioned me on, that is, the regular appropriation accounts. It is based 
upon Executive Document No. 10, and, in order to have it understood, I 
would have to read another letter first. 



331 

By the Court : 

Qaestiou. From the Secretary of AVar? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The President. Well, let us have them all. It may be a little irreg- 
ular, but it can do no harm. I think it is the sense of the court that we 
have all the letters read relating to the subject, with such explanations 
as the witness may premise. 

The Judge-Advocate. I do not know what the contents of these 
letters are. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Nor do I. 

The President. Kor do we. That is w^hat we want to find out. The 
witness has the papers here and they may as well be read now as at any 
other time. VYe do not, of course, wish to burden the record with any 
irrelevant matter, and if after they are read we think they do not bear 
upon the case, and are of no importance, we can exclude them. 

The Witness. I will premise the reading of the first letter by stating 
that I have not the entire, complete copy of the letter of the Secretary of 
War to the letter of the Secretary of the Treasury as referred to here, 
from the fact that it was referred back to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
but the substance. It is almost entirely quoted in this letter which I 
am about to read with your pennission : ' 

Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 14, 1874. 
Hon. Wm. a. Eiciiardson, 

Secretary of the Treasury : 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the honorable Secretary of War's 
letter of 3d instant, inclosing Executive Document No. 10, H. R., with your indorse- 
ment of the 12th instant thereon, calling for a report as to such portions of the in- 
closed communication and executive document as pertained to his [this] office. In 
this referred letter the honorable Secretary of War calls attention to page 14 of said 
executive document, item 40, $909.21, for expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871, 
ranged under caption C, analysis of disbursements from appropriation for support of 
the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1872, made from vouchers as filed in the Treasury Department, and requests 
information as to whether the accounts of the disbursing officers of the late Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds embracing such amounts have yet been 
settled. The honorable Secretary of War adds : ' If the accounts have already been 
settled on the books of the Treasury, I have the honor to request that, in view of the 
facts set forth in the inclosed documents, the same may be at once re-opened.' 

In reply to the first request of the Secretary of War, I have the honor to state that 
all tiie accounts of the disbursing officers of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands embracing the payments referred to in said Executive Document 
No. 10, H. R., have been audited in this office, referred to the Second Comptroller for 
official action, and by him confirmed and returned to this office as correct ; and, in 
reply to the second request of the Secretary of War, I have the honor to state that it 
has never been the custom of the accounting officers to open an account officially closed 
unless on errors in the official statements subsequently discovered, or upon good 
and sufficient evidence that certain specified vouchers have been fraudulently paid. 
As no errors in the official statements have been pointed out, and no intimation of 
charge of fraud has been raised in Executive Document No. 10, H. R., against the 
vouchers upon which the payments referred to were based, I cannot see the necessity, 
nor do I deem it advisable, for this office to open the accounts referred to. I shall at all 
times, however, be ready and willing to re-open these accounts or any others whenever 
good and sufficient evidence is furnished that frauds have been committed or fraudu- 
lent vouchers paid in any case. 

The letter of the Secretary of War is returned herewith. 
I have the honor to be, very respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 



332 

Shall I read the second letter from the Secretary of War ? 
The President, If you please. 

War Dkpartment, 
Washington, I). (J., January 24, 1874. 
Hon. Secretary of the Treasury : 

Sir: I liave the honor to acknowledge the receipt, on the 19th instant, of your com- 
munication of the 17th instant inclosing copies of the reports of the Second and Third 
Auditors and the Second Comptroller, relative to re-opening the accounts of the late 
disbursing officers of the Bureau R., F. & A. L., as requested by my communication of 
the 3d instant. 

At the date of my letter of the 3d all the evidence — the vouchers — covering the mis- 
application and embezzlement of at least $36,449.07 was before or under the control 
of the accounting officers, (Third Auditor and Second Comptroller.) The analysis of 
disbursements — C, page 14, Executive Document lU, House of Representatives, 43d Con- 
gress, 1st session — involved the said vouchers, and therefore should have led to their 
examination, thus to have obtained " good and sufficient evidence " that " frauds have 
been committed" "and fraudulent vouchers paid." 

The laws have directed what shall be deemed " embezzlement," and the act of embez- 
zlement necessarily embraces fraud or deception practicad to gain an unlawful advan- 
tage. 

Therefore, renewing my request that the accounts with the Third Auditor be re- 
opened, I beg again to invite attention to Executive Document No. 10, page 14, item 
$49,909.21, for expenses incurred prior to July 1,1871, caption C, and to specify the 
vouchers hereinbefore referred to as with the accounting officers, and representing the 
disbursements, by inclosing herewith a list of them, marked A. 

The appropriation acts show the specific purposes for which the money was appro- 
priated. 

The vouchers specified show that the money (at least $36,449.07) was used for other 
than the purposes specified in the appropriation acts. Therefore, at the date of my 
letter of the 3d instant, the accounting officers were in possession of all the data neces- 
sary to intelligent action. 

The disbursements represented by the vouchers, as enumerated, involve a violation 
oftbe following acts of Congress: 39th Article of War; sec. J, March 3, 1809, 2 Stat., p. 
535 ; sec. 2, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat., pp. 64, 65 ; sec. 2, act February 12, 1868, 15 Stat., pp. 
35, 36 ; sees. 5 and 7, July 12, 1870, 16 Stat., p. 251. 

As having a direct and special bearing, I quote sec. 2 of the act of June 14, 1866, 14 
Stat., p. 64, which enacts "that if any disbursing officer of the United States * « * 
shall, for any purpose not prescribed by law, transfer or apply any portion of the public 
money intrusted to him, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged an enibezzlement 
of the money so * * used * * transferred, or applied, and every such act is 
hereby declared a felony ;" * * * and sec. 2, of the act of February 12, 1868, 15 
Stat., page 36, " that so much of * * * the act of March 3, 1869, * * * as 
authorizes the President, on the application of the Secretary of any Departuient, to 
transfer the moneys appropriated for a particular branch of that Department to another 
branch of expenditure in the same Department, be, and the same is hereby, i'ei)ealed ; 
and all acts or parts of acts authorizing such transfers of appropriations be, and the 
same are hereby, repealed ; and no money appropriated for one purpose shall hereafter 
be used for any other purpose than that for which it is appropriated ;" and section 12, 
of the act of July 12, 1870, "that it shall not be lawful for any Department of the 
Government to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made 
by Congress for that fiscal year, or to involve the Governm^i^t in auy contract for the 
future payment of money in excess of such appropriations." 

The laws require the Secretary of War to well and faithfully see that the sums appro- 
priated by law are "solely applied to the objects for wliich they are respectively appro- 
priated," and they require the Third Auditor to have record in bis office, classified by 
appropriations, of certain moneys paid on warrants in favor of the late Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

The Third Auditor is further responsible that the appropriations are " solely applied 
to the objects for which they are respectively appropriated." 

The laws having thus directed that money appropriated for one purpose shall not be 
used for any other purpose, it is evident that the accounting officers have no authority 
to defeat the object of the law by the passage of vouchers aud accounts, or otherwise. 

The Attoruej--General has said (2 Opinions, 629, 630) that it is the duty of the ac- 
counting officers, so far as " vests" and partial settlements are concerned, to make all 
corrections as may be rendered necessary by the detection of palpable errors or false 
items. 

In connection with the reply to this communication, and in the exercise of the au- 
thority conferred by the act of March 3, 1817, ch. 45, which has made it the duty of 
the Third Auditor " to make such reports on the business assigned to them" [him] 



333 

"as the Secretary of War may deem necessary and require," I respectfully request 
that he will, as to Ihe subject under consideration, inform me: 

1. If, in the settlement of the late disbursing officer's accounts, he personally exam- 
ined in order to determine if the appropriations for the liscal year ending June 30, 
1872, were " solely applied to the object for which it [they] was [were] appropriated? 

'2. Upon his atteution being directed, through my letter of the 3d instant, to the anal- 
ysis, (C. p. 14, Ex. Doc. 10,) as made by the records of his oflice, did he consult the 
amount of the appropriations as indicated, and examine the vouchers paid from 
them t 

Relative to the accounts under the Second Auditor, I continue of the opinion that 
they should be re-opened without further delay, at least so far as they involve the 
94 cases, embracing complaints which have assumed a definite form, which have been 
by the Second Auditor transmitted to this Department, and been by me placed before 
the Department of Justice.. 

I have the honor to remain, your obedient servant, 

W. W. BELKNAP, 

Sccretarij of }Vur, 

By the Accused, (tbroiigh bis counsel:) 

Questiou. Any indorsements on that letter? 

Answer. Yes, sir. Indorsed as follows : 

[First indorsement.] 

The Second Comptroller and the Second and Third Auditors will comply with the 
reouest of the Secretary of War in the within communication, if consistent with law. 

W. A. RICHARDSON, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 

January 27, 1874. 

[Second indorsement.] 

Treasury DErARXMENX, January 28, 1874. 
Respectfully referred to the Second Comptroller of the Treasury, whose attention is 
invited to the foregoing indorsement of the Secretary of the Treasury, and who is 
respectfully requested to have the desired action taken and information furnished bj^ 
the Second and Third Auditors. 

F. A. SAWYER, 
Assistant Secretary. 
[Third indorsement.] 

Treasury Depaktjient, Second Comptroller's Office, 

January 29, 1874. 
Respectfully referred to the Third Auditor for proper action, as indicated in the in- 
doisements of the Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the 27tli and 28th instants. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Com2)troUer. 

Question. What was done about it by the Third Auditor? 
Answer. The Third Auditor directed the voucher to be taken up as 
specified in the abstract accompanying this- letter examined by me and 
submitted to the Comptroller, first submitted to him, and then directed 
the letter to be writteu, sending it down to the Comptroller. Here is 
auother letter: 

Treasury Department, Third Ai'ditor's Office, 

Washington, D. C, February 5, 1874. 

Hon. J. M. Brodhead, 

Second Comptroller ; 
Sir : I have the honor to return herewith the letter of the honorable Secretary of 
War of the 24th ultimo, ["That is the letter I have just read,"] to the honorable Sec- 
retary of the Treasury, which was forwarded to you as per indorsement of the Secretary 
and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, (January 27 and 28, 1874,) and by you re- 
ferred to this Office for proper action, January 29, 1874. The letter of the Secretary of 
War above referred to is partly in reply to my letter to the honorable Secretary of the 
Treasury, dated January 14, 1874, a copy of which is herewith forwarded. In response 
to that portion of the honorable Secretary of War's letter to the honorable Secretary 
of the Treasury, January 3, 1874, in which he requests that certain accounts of the 
disbursing officers of the late Bureau of Refugees, Ereedmen and Abandoned Lands, 



• 334 

" iu view of the facts set forth in the inclosed said document (Ex. Doc, No. 10, H. R.) 
may be at once re-opened," as will be seen by the papers herewith the Secretary of 
War incloses an abstract of certain vonchers found iu the accounts of the late disburs- 
ing officers of the Bureau of Refugees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands, amounting in 
the aggregate to $4'J,909.21, and claims that .$:5fi,449.07 of said amount was paid by said 
officers in violation of certain laws of Congress, and by quotations from certain por- 
tions of said acts of Congress infers that payment of said vouchers was an embezzle- 
ment of the public funds, and therefore repeats his request in his letter of the lid ultimo 
that the accounts be re-opened. The point insisted upon is that they were paid out of a 
"wrong appro] iri at ion, and, per consequence, although proper in themselves, their payment 
should be declared an embezzlement by the accounting officers. The Secretary of War 
calls attention to the act of June 14, 1866, as having a direct and special bearing, and 
quotes section 2 of said act, " that If any disbursing officer of the United States shall, 
for any purpose not prescribed by law, transfer or ap})ly any portion of the public 
money intrusted to him, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged an embezzlement 
of the money so used, transferred, or applied, and every such act is hereby declared a 
felony." I would respeitfuUy submit, however, whether Congress intended the act 
above referred to should have a direct and special bearing upon the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedmeu and Abaiuloned Lands, for in the act to provide for the settlement of 
accounts of certain public officers, approved June 15, 186(3, one day subsequent to the 
act above quoted, it was enacted, in section 2, " that where accounts are rendered for 
expenditures for refugees or freedmeu under the approval and sanction of the proper 
officers, and which shall have been proper and necessary, but cannot be settled for 
want of specific appropriations, the same may be paid out of the funds for the relief of 
refugees and freedmeu, on the approval of the Commissioner of thejBureau of Refugees 
and Freedmeu." 

The foregoing act seems to have escaped the attention of the Hon. Seci'etary of 
War. As it has not been claimed by the Secretary of War that the vouchers referred 
to and herewith inclosed were fraudulent in themselves, and as I have failed, after a 
critical re-examination of them, to discover any clerical errors, fraudulent paj'meuts, 
or attempts to obtain monej' fraudulently or by fictitious vouchers, they are respect- 
fully forwarded and again submitted for your re-examination and approval. Your 
attention is especially called to vouchers No. 44, January, 1872 ; 51, April, 1872, and 26, 
June, 1872, being a portion of those vouchers entered upon the abstract submitted by 
the Secretary of War as expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871, and paid from the 
appro])riation for the support of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lauds for the year ending June 30, 1872, and referred to in Ex. Doc. No. 10, H. R., as 
a misapplication of public funds. 

These vouchers are each indorsed as follows : "Appi'oved for blank dollars, and or- 
dered ])aid. By order Secretary of War. John Potts, chief clerk." 
Verv respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD 

AudUor. 

By the Court: 

Qtiestion. Did the Secretary of War reply or forward it back ? 

Answer. The letter went down, as I have stated, with these vouchers 
to the Second Comptroller ; he read it and sent for me, and, after having 
the vouchers looked over, said he did not see any necessity for any farther 
examination, and to put them back on the file — no occasion to make a 
new settlement, and, tiiially, I had a conversation both with him and the 
chief clerk, and the Comptroller finally suggested that if the Secretary 
of War was exceedingly anxious to have these vouchers charged against 
the disbursing ofiticers, that if I thought proper — if the Auditor thought 
proper — he could make a statement in this wise: debit the accounting 
ofticers with the amount of those vouchers as erroneou.sly paid out of 
the appropriation for that year, and credit them in the same settlement 
out of appropriation for March 3, 1873, an appropriation of $75,000 to 
the credit of that appropriation for the purpose of reconciling any 
balances which may have been paid out of other appropriations belong 
ing to the Bureau. There was a balance belonging to that appro- 
priation of $43,000 or $44,000, and that settlement is in abeyance yet ; 
we have not decided whether we would make it or not. It is in shape, 
but never acted upon. We thought we would wait until the result of 



335 

this investigation and see what your body thoaglit of the matter. It 
is a paper appropriation, debiting one and crediting the other ; the 
whole transaction is wliat we would call a, paper transaction. 

Question. Did that letter go to the Secretary of War f 

Answer. No, sir; this is the original letter. The Comptroller said 
there was no use going any further in the matter. I withdrew that 
letter. 

Question. Still, it is a part of the archives of the Third Auditor's Of- 
fice ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And you come into the possession of it rightfully ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it is the official signature of the Third Auditor. 

By the Aocused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Have you letters earlier in date ? 

Answer. I have. Those are the ones I refer to. 

The Judge- Advocate. In reference to what ? 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) In reference to the general mat- 
ter of this account ? 

The President. These questions are rather by the court than as a 
part of the cross examination. There are evidently some papers herein 
rightful hands and they come to us rightfully, and it don't matter whether 
they are brought out on the part of the prosecution or the defense. The 
sense of the court is, that anything that throws light on the subject- 
matter it is i)roper for us to receive. These pai)ers are authenticated; 
they are certainly in the hands of a competent witness who has sworn 
to them and submitted them to us, and they enter properly upon the 
record. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. I will ask for the previous letters which you have with 
you. 

The President. Do they illustrate this subject-matter of inquiry ? 

The Accused, (through his counsel :) Well, they bear upon the gen- 
eral subject. I have a letter from Adjutant-General Vincent, asking to 
have copies of those vouchers made upon which this document is based. 

The President. They are hardly pertinent to the inquiry. 

The Accused, (through his counsel :) We go upon the general as- 
sumption that no harm would happen to us if all the correspondence 
were read, and we want to have it all in. 

The President. We don't want to burden our record with anything 
unnecessary, and, therefore, don't wish to bring in any side-issues if we 
can avoid it. 

Witness reads : 

War Depart:\ient, Adjutant-Generai/s Office, 

WanhuKjtou, D. V., July 22, 1878. 
The Third Auditor, United States Treasury : 

Sir : With a view to the completion of the records of the late Bureau of Freedioen, 
Refugees aud Abandoned Lands, and for the information of the Secretary of War 
relative to a subject now under consideration by him, I have the honor to request that 
you will permit Jolui S. Moody, chief clerk, disbursing officer, and such clerks from 
this office as he may detail, to examine the accounts of the late disbursing officers of 
the said Bureau, and to make such transcrii)ts therefrom as may be necessary for the 
purpose above indicated, the examination to be made iu conjunction with some one of 
the gentlemen employed in your office. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



336 

I have another letter from General Vincent. It is as follows : 

War Depaktaient, Adji^tant-Genekal's Office, 

Washhiyton, D. C, August I, 1873. 

The Third Auditor of United States Treasitry : 

Sir : I have the honor to request, for the information of the Secretary of War, a 
statement from the accounts of the late chief disbursing officers of the Bureau of Ref- 
ugees, Frcodnien and Abandoned Lands, General George W. Balloch, General O. 0. 
Howard, and Maj. J. M. Brown, showing amounts of moneys received each month, 
amount disbursed each month, amount on hnud at the end of the month, and wliere 
said amount was deposited ; said statement to embrace the period from March, 1807, to 
June 30, 1872, inclusive. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

' THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant General 

There was a reply to that, which is as follows : 

Treasury I)epa]{tment, Third Auditor's Office, 

October 7, 1873. 
Sir: In compliance with your request of August 1, 1873, 1 have the Iionor to trans- 
mit herewith au abstract from the accounts of the late chief disbursing otiticers of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, General George W. Balloch, 
General O. O. Ilowaid, and Maj. J. M. Brown, showing amounts of moneys received 
each month, amounts disbursed each mouth, amount on hand at the end of each month, 
and where said amounts were deposited from March 1, 1867, to June 30, 1867, inclusive, 
^'erv respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor, 
Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 
[Four sheets inclosed.] 

This letter was also received : 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

IVaskington, D. C, November 6, 1873. 
The Third Auditor, United States Treasury : 

Sir : General O. O. Howard, United States Armj', late Commissioner of Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, informs this otiice that on Febrnary 10, 
1872, the sum of $208.50 of arrears of pay and bounty was placed to his credit with the 
Treasurer of the United States, but by mistake went into tbe "Refugees and Freed- 
men's fund," and in that way accounted for to the Government. 

I have, therefore, the hcmor to request that you will please inform this otHce whether 
the money was accounted for as stated. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjatant-G eneral. 

The reply of the Third Anditor is as follows : 

NOVEMIJER 10, 1873. 
Sir : In reply to yours of the 6th inst., I have the honor to state that fronran exam- 
ination of the records of the United States Treasury it appears that on the 10th of 
February, 1872,- General O. O. Howard dejjosired General George W. Balloch's check 
on New York for |;208.50, and that the amount was carried to General Howard's credit, 
on account of " Refugees and Freedmen's fund," on the Treasurer's books. This 
amount was not jdaced to General Howard's credit on the books of this office, neither 
does he claim credit for it in his accounts on tile in this office. 
Very respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 
This letter was also received : 

War Department, 
Wasliington, D. C, Novemher 26, 1873. 
The Third Auditor of the Treasurtj : 

Sir: Referring to your letter [A C] of the 10th inst. to the Assistant Adjutant- 
General in regard to the |208.50 deposited in the United States Treasury by General 
Howard on the lOtli of February, 1872, you are respectfully informed that the Adjutant- 
General has reported as follows in reference to this matter : 



337 

" It appera-s that altliough General Howard deposited tbe amount as stated in his 
indorsement of October 7, 1873, he has not accounted for the same by talcing it up on 
his acount pertaining to the said ' Eeftigees and Freedmeu's fund ' rendered by him 
to the accii'iuting officers of the Treasury Department. 

" The case thus stands: General Howard received the amount hy clieclc; he did not 
take it up on his accounts; he has not filed a voucher for the disbursement. There- 
fore it simply rests in the Treasury, and has not been accounted for as required by law. 
It remains for him to account for it, and to do that he should render to the Treasury a 
supplemental account to embrace it, first, as received ; second, as disbursed as per 
voucher. But as there has been no dishursement per voucher, the necessary voucher should 
be secured by General Howard, transferring the amount in question to Capt. James 
McMillan, chief disbursing officer, and obtain that officer's receipt." 

A copy of this report has been furnished General Howard. 
Very respectfullv, 

W. W. BELKNxiP, 

Secretary of War. 

That is all tbe letters I have. 

By the Accused, (throngh his counsel :) 
Question. Is there not an answer to that letter ? 
Answer, i^o, sir ; it did not require an answer. It answered itself. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Have you gone over this tabulated statement which was 
put in evidence during Mr. Harrison's examination during your presence, 
and ascertained whether the vouchers enumerated in it are all on file or 
not in your office? [Exhibit C^.] 

Answer. I have ; they are on file. 

Question. Do they comprise the accounts as stated here ? 

Answer. I would state that the vouchers enumerated there and the 
amounts embraced in them are set down correctly in that statement as 
shown by the vouchers on hie in our office. The abstract of the vouchers, 
the synopsis of course, I did not examine, and do not know anything 
about that. 

On motion, at 3.40 p. m., the court adjourned to Monday, April 20, 
1874, at 11 o'clock. 



TWENTY-NINTH DAY. 

V, Court of Inquiry Kooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, B. C, April 20, 1874. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Mty. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Cavalrv, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., j udge-advocate ; also, 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 
22 H c 



338 

The iiiiuutes of the proceedings of Friday hist, April 17, were read 
and approved. 

Andrew Cauklwell, a former witness, was then recalled, and his pre- 
vious testimony having been read to him, was pronounced by him to be 
correct as recorded. 

At tlie close of the reading the judge-advocate said: If the court 
please, I desire to state that our regular reporter, who was to have re- 
turned this morning, is unavoidably detained in New York, and I have 
temporarily supplied his ])lace by Mr. Jas. W. Tooley, whom I desire to 
present to "the court and whom 1 have known for some time. 

Mr. Tooley was then duly sworn according to law in the presence of 
the accused as reporter, under the 28th section of the act of Congress 
approved March 3, 1863. 

John S. Moody, a former witness, was then recalled, and testified as 
follows : 

By the Jtjdge-Advocate : 

Question. Mr. Moody, how long have you been chief clerk of the Freed- 
uien's Branch of the Adjutant-General's Office! 

Answer. I have been chief clerk of the chief disbursing officer since 
the 1st of July, 1872. There were two divisions in the office : one known 
as the chief disbursing, and one as the miscellaneous division. Those 
divisions were consolidated last November, and 1 took entire charge of 
the whole office at that time. 

Question. Do you know anything with reference to certain alleged 
complaints of colored soldiers that they have not received their boun- 
ties ! If so, please state in detail w^hat you know of the circumstances. 

Answer. We did not get fairly under operation with the business ot 
the office until about the latter part of September, 1872. About that 
time I left the city and was absent until a week or ten days after the 
presidential election in November, 1872. Upon my return I found that 
the correspondence of the office had been very generally brought up. 
There had been a number of these cases of complaint from colored 
soldiers, that they had not received their bounty, that had been acted 
upon. The course then adopted was, after consultation, I see [refer- 
ring to paper which he holds in his hand] with General Vincent, it was 
decided to answer those cases in about these terms. I have here the 
original draught of the first reply that was made in those complaint 

cases. It is dated 

War Department, Adjt'tant General's Office, 

iVasMngton, D. C, October 13, 1873. 
Messrs. Gilliam & Pkuben, 

Attorneys, ^c, Edenton, N. C: 
Messrs. : In auswer to your letter of April 20, 1872, respecting the bounty, &c., of 
Isaac Nichols, late privata Company I, Second United States Colored Cavalry, I have 
to inform you that the records of the late Freedmeu's Bureau show the claim of said 
soldier to have been prosecuted by C. F. McGill, of this city, and that the amount (less 
$10.7;'), attorney's fees) of the certificate issued by the Second Auditor in settlement of 
the claim was paid by the chief disbursing officer of the Bureau on November 8, 1867, 
to a person identified by Mr. McGill as the veritable soldier for whom he filed the 
claim. 

This Office is in nowise responsible for payments made or alleged to have been made 
by the late Freedmeu's Bureau, nor can it take cognizance of any claims which the re- 
cords of that Bureau show to be already paid. 

The Washington City Directory for the year gives the address of one Charles T. 
McGill (j)reBnmcd to be the one above-named) as 713 Sixth street, northwest. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

T. M. v., 
Assistatit Adjutant-General. 



339 

Which indicates that the letter was signed by Thomas M. Vincent. 
On the 18th of October, this rough draught was submitted by Major 
McMillan to General Vincent, with an inquiry if this would answer, 
and General Vincent sent it back indorsed in blue pencil " O. K." 

Shortly after my return from leave of absence in IS'ovember, 1872, I 
noticed that quite a number of these requests that had been sent out had 
been returned by the parties asking our advice as to what relief could 
be afforded them, and stating that they had never received their money. 
We had a consultation — I presume Major McMillan and myself talked 
the matter over, and I have here a memorandum submitted by Major 
McMillan to General Vincent. He says : 

Eespectfullj^ referred to General Vincent, Assistant Adjutant-General : 
In view of the fact that we are receiving back a large number, marked " G," of letters 
from claimants, whose letters we have answered in accordance with the accompanyiug 
letter "A," (circular in form,) approved by you, I would suggest that we forward to the 
Second Auditor all letters of nature of those herewith, giving him all the information 
that can be had from the records of this office in each case, informing the claimants that 
■we have done so ; leaving further action with him (the Auditor.) 

He will probably return in most cases with a letter similar to the accompanying 
marked "B." 

J. McM. 

November 23, l.-;72. 
Approved. Course indicated is very good. 

T. M. V. 

After this date all communications received from claimants alleging 
that they did not receive their money were submitted to the Second 
Auditor of tlie Treasury, furnishing him all the information which the 
Bureau could aftbrd relative to them and informing him that they were 
placed before him for such action as he might deem proper. We con- 
tinued submitting those cases from that time until, my impression is, 
about the 10th of April, 1873, when the Auditor addressed a letter to 
the Adjutant-General, asking for the views of the War Department, as 
to the action to be taken in these cases, and that letter, if I have it, I 
prefer to 

The Judge-Advocate. It is one of the exhibits in the hands of the 
Government Printer. 

By the Court : 

Question. What is the drift of it ? 

Answer, (by the witness.) It is the letter that was addressed by the 
Second Auditor to the Adjutant-General, which was submitted by the 
Adjutant-General to the Acting Secretary of War, Eobeson, and he 
approved of the suggestions made in the letter, that the War Depart- 
ment and the Treasury Department and the Department of Justice 
should investigate these cases, first forwarding them to the War De- 
partment. Under that arrangement w^e received a number of these 
cases from the Second Auditor of the Treasury. There were certain 
difiiculties we saw in the way of a thorough investigation, and it was 
finally determined to submit the whole matter to the Attorney-General 
for his opinion. There were some four or live or six cases — 1 will not be 
certain as to the number — which accompanied the communication of 
the Secretary of War to the Attorney-General asking for his o])inion. 
In reply to that request of the Secretary of War, an opinion was given 
by the Attorney-General, I believe, in July, '73. 



340 

By the Court : 

'Question. Have you got that opinion f 

Answer. It will be found on page 4 of Exhibit B. Acting under that 
opinioo, we have in every instance where the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury has forwarded such cases to us, transmitted them to the De- 
partmeut of Justice for the prosecution of the parties concerned, or for 
such action as might to him seem proper. 

The Judge- Advocate. Have you any recollection how many such 
cases have been forwarded through the Freedmen's Branch of the Ad- 
jutant-General's Office to the Department of Justice 1 

Answer. I could not say positively. I have a complete record of the 
cases. I think there must be nearly a hundred of them. I would not 
be certain, however. 

Question. When you received these complaints from colored soldiers, 
claiming that they had not received their bounty, do you know what 
the records of your office in each case showed with reference to such 
claims, if anything? 

Answer. Well, the records — " the bounty register,'' as it is called — 
would be the first record referred to. In all the cases we call complaint 
cases, that record would indicate payment of the claim. It would then 
be necessary to refer to the "jacket," or the wrapper of the cases. We 
would ascertain there the date when the funds were sent out for payment, 
and by means of the information obtained from that "jacket," we could 
ascertain, referring to the letter-books of the Bureau, to Avhom these 
funds had been sent. We would then go to the records of this agent 
and obtain what information his records would show in regard to the 
matter, embodying all that in a brief form upon our report, submitting 
our case to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and the same informa- 
tion would be furnished to the Department of Justice, when the cases 
were received back from the Auditor. 

Question. Have you a list of the complaint cases'? 

Answer. Yes, I have a list. 

Question. In the list of one hundred and seventy-four claims in evi- 
dence in this case, do you know of any where the records of the Bureau 
show, in any way, that payment has not been made? 

Answer. I think there are some of those cases that can be shown by 
the records of the Bureau not to have been paid to the claimants. 

Question. Have you any such instances ? If so, please furnish them 
to the court. 

Answer. There is one case, the case of Harriet A. Walker, widow of 
Pius D. Walker, Comi)any C, Fifth United States Colored Cavalry, whose 
claim was settled by Treasury certificate Jfo. 5^5513, that is borne on 
the records as having been paid on January 27, 1872, by the agent at 
Louisville, Ky. I hold in my hand tlie consolidated monthly report of 
moneys received and disbursed on account of bounties, &c., by P. J. Over- 
ley, agent Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, for the 
State of Kentucky, for the month of January, 1872. Under the head 
of receipts, Mr. Overley reports: January 31, 1872, received $337.33, to 
pay Harriet A., widow of Pius I). Walker, Company 0, Fifth United States 
Colored Cavalry. The voucher in this case is filed the 27th January, 1872, 
in the Treasury department. I have here [referring to papers] a list 
of cases returned to the Bureau, March 30, 1872, by Mr. Overley, agent, 
&c., as follows : 

Bureau Rf:FUGEES, Fueedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Disuuksing Officer, State of Kentucky, 

Louisville, Ky., March 3U, 1872. 

Maj. J. M. Brown, Chief Disbursing Officer, Washington, D. C. : 

Major : 1 have the honor to return herewith unpaid bounty vouchers in 81 cases, 



341 

together witlitbe list of the same, which comprises all the unpaid cases for which 1 aai 
responsible at this writing. 
Respectfully, &c., 

P. J. OVERLEY, 

Ageni, cj-c. 

On that list I find the case of Harriet A. Walker, widow of Pius D. 
Walker, alias Pius Dominick, Company 0., Eighth United States Colored 
Cavalry, $337.33. 

These consolidated monthly reports were rendered after about July, 
1871, at the end of each month. They show, in the first place, all moneys 
received that mouth and all the payments made. The report for Jan- 
uary, shows a total amount received of $9,574.21. 

Amounts disbursed during that month, including $138.22 re- 
turned to Gen. O. O. Howard by check 2503, on United 
States depository, Louisville, Ky 8788 54 

Amount on haud February 1, 1872 8, 785 (37 

The report for February 1, 1872, shows amount on haud 8. 785 <»7 

Amount received 325 66 

Amount disbursed 6, 614 99 

That included $5,000 returned to Maj. J. M. Brown, disbursing officer, 
by check 2507 on the United States depositary at Louisville, Ky., as per 
letter of instructions from the Commissioner of February 5, 1872, leav- 
ing on hand March 1, 1872, $2,496.34. 

The papers referred to are the accounts of P. J. Overley, agent of the 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands at Louisville, Ky. 

The report for March, 1872 : 

Amount on hand $2, 496 34 

Amount received 1, 000 00 

Amount disbursed , 3, 435 34 

Amount on hand April 1, 1872 61 00 

That is the last report of Overley on the files. There is uoihing on 
the consolidated monthly reports of receipts and disbursements to show 
that the claim of Harriet A., widow of Pius D. Walker, was paid, and on 
the 30th March Overley reports that it was not paid, or had not been paid 
by him 5 it is still due. 

The next letter is as follows : 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Disbursing Officer, State of Kentucky, 

Louisville, Ky., March 30, 187"2. 
Maj. J. M. Brown, 

Disbursing Officer, Bureau Refugees^ Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, Washington, D. C: 
Major: I have the houor to inclose herewith my check, No. 2.525, on the Uuite<l 
States depostai'y in this city, payable to your order", for the sum of |64.02, being bal- 
ance to my cre<lit for the payment of bounties, &c. I have been compelled to turn 
away many claimants (whose vouchers are in my hands) during the past week, for 
want of funds to pay their cases, while at times I have been literally besieged by par- 
ties desiring information relative to the status of their chiinis for bounty, &c. 

You will observe a difference of $3.-nj% between the amount on the inclosed check and 
the balance on my report of receipts and expenditures, a discrepancy readily ex- 
plained : My predecessor, Mr. Ray, transferred to me on the first of the year, in excess 
of the amount called for by vouchers, turned over at the same time, $2.99, and on the 
"2d of January I received from the Commissioner check 2716, payable at Saint Louis, 
Mo., for $186.22. 



342 

I'll is till' depositary has declined to accept, and I was compelled to have it cashed 
aud deposit the currency, !iiilHf).2r) — three ccuts more than I was entitled to a credit foi'. 
Very rcspcctiully, your obedient servant, 

P. J. OVERLEY, 

A (lent, c^c. 

Question. Did he send tbe money to the disbursing officer at Wash- 
ington .' 

Answer. The money to pay that case was included in the $5,000 draft 
that was i-eturnod. 

Question. Did Major Brown take up that amount ? 

Answer. They never took up money that came back, in that way. 

The AcousBD, (through his counsel :) Question. Did not Major Krown 
turn that over to Major McMillen? 

Answer. I know that he did not turn over $337.33, for the reason that 
a voucher for that amount had been liled in the Treasury 27th January. 

The Judge-Advocate. This case of Harriet A. Walker, widow of P. 
D. Walker, is one of the 174 complaint-cases in evidence here ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The JiTDCiE- Advocate said : If the court please, I will offer these 
several consolidated monthly reports and papers referred to by the wit- 
ness in evidence. 

Tlie President. This will very much extend our record, seeing that 
the witness swears positively in these matters. 

The Judge- Advocate. No doubt as to that. Perhaps it would be 
bettor to leav^e the consideration of these for the present until we can 
see whether it will be desirable to introduce any extracts. 

The Accused, (tlirough his counsel.) There is no dispute about this. 

The President, (to tbe Judge- Advocate.) You can put in any such 
inatter as you thiidc essential and prudent, attended, of course, by oral 
testimony. 

Tiie Judge-Advocate. If there is no dispute as to that fact, there 
Mill be no necessity of putting them in. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) 1 do not think there is any dis- 
])Ute about it. The witness has not gone quite far enough to show that 
jNIajor lUown, in fact, turned over this particular money. He has got 
this information in his possession. It Major Brown did not turn it over, 
Major Brown has got to make it good. 

The Judge-Advocate. Do you know any otlier cases among those 
174, which, by the records, show a non-payment to the chiimant? 

Answer. Tliere is the case of Eliza Smith, widow of William, or Bill 
Smith, Company II, One hundred and fifteenth United States Colored 
Troops, whose claim was settled by Treasury certificate No. 574146, for 
8413.28. The records in the case indicate payment. A complaint was 
received from Elizai Smith, or from her attorney, I won't be certain which^ 
which in the course of business was referred to the Second Auditor un- 
der the arrangement. That case was afterward received back from 
the Second Auditor, who had received additioiml information in regard 
to it. The addition.'d information consisted of a draft drawn by Ben. 
P.Eunkle on Fant, Washington & Co., which draft had been previously 
returned to ]i>li/,a Smith, who was obliged" to lift the same from the bank 
that had cashed it in Kentucky. The records in the case show that the 
funds, with vouchers, were sent to II. H. liay, August 28, 1871. 

The Court. From tliis office? 

Answer. Yes, sir; from this office here. Ray's consolidated monthly 



343 

report of moneys received and disbursed shows that he received the 
money on the 9th October, 1871, $401.28 ; that payment was made at 
Dry Fork, Kentucky, by Benj. P. Eunkle to Eliza Smith. Tlie cohimn 
for names of witnesses to actual payment is left blank ; nothing is p ut 
there, as usual in most of the other cases. The payment is alleged to 
have been made on the 11th October, 1871. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. The consolidated report is dated when ? 
Answer. It appears on the consolidated monthly report of EI. H. Ray, 
agent for the State of Kentucky, for the month of October, 1871. 

By the CoUKT : 
Question. Was that a case that w^as embraced in the court-martial 
proceedings against Eunkle ? 
Answer. 1 believe not. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Do you know of any other cases in the list of 174 claimants? 

Answer. On that list of 174 cases there are ten cases that i)urport to 
have been paid prior to the death of St. Clair Mandeville ; there are 
three of those cases showni by St. Clair Mandeville's record not to have 
been paid. 

Question. Please name the particulars. 

Answer. I will state, in connection with these Mandeville reeprrls, that 
at the time of my previous testimony I had not made a careful examination 
of the books received as records from New Orleans, in December last. 
Those records were found at the depot of the Baltimore and Oliio Rail- 
road ; and we had them forwarded to us between Christmas jind New 
Year's, in last December. Capt. Sladen, of General E[oward'vS staff, liad 
informed General Vincent of the fact that there were some boxes of rec- 
ords at the depot, and upon that information wo went to the depot and 
found these two boxes. They contained the records of the disl)ursing 
office at Louisville, and the disbursing office at New Orleans. The day 
that I was here before we had just completed the arrangement of the 
records of the State of Louisiana, and upon my return the next day I 
made a thorough examination, and I found Mandeville's cash-book and 
his record of money received, which I have with me. 

Question. Please state what those cases are, and what the amounts 
are for. 

Answer. There is the case of Frank Wilson, Company I, Eighty-fourth 
Colored Troops, .$-J35.95.; there is the case of John Butler, Company C, 
Eighty-fourth Colored Troops, $207.80 ; and there is the case of Mitchell 
Rossen, Compauv F, Sixty-eighth United States Colored Troops, amount 
$272.25. 

A Member of the Court. I move that no further notice be taken 
of these 174 cases, except such of the cases as those in which it can be 
shown that the money had not been sent from General Howard's office 
or his chief disbursing officer's office to pay, or, the money having been 
sent, it was returned subsequently to General Howard or his disbursing 
officer, ami the money not accounted for. 

The Judge-Advocate. I trust, if the court please, that the motion 
will not prevail, because, in the first place, 1 do not see how I coidd 
obtain the data which the gentleman who has ma<le the motion thinks 
desirable in the premises. There is a list of 174 cases which have been 
presented to the Adjutant-General's Office, and by the Secretary of Wai 
sent to Congress. The list is in evidence. Of those cases, about one 



• 344 

hundred have been transmitted to the Department of Justice from the 
Second Auditor's Ofiice, through the Adjutant-General's Office, for such 
action as might be deemed des:rable. Now, in this matter the Attor- 
ney-General delivered an opinion as to the responsibility of the Commis- 
sioner, which forms a part of Exhibit B in this case. Of course, he 
being the proper legal adviser of the Secretary of War, it was very 
proper for the Secretary of War to be guided by his opinion, after he 
had delivered it, until reversed by a court of competent jurisdiction. 

Here are 174 cases, and I desire to show from the records, in several 
instances, not having gone, as yet, fully into all of them, (the court 
having thus far thought it unnecessary to do so,) that they were 
actually not paid, and that these men have been applying for their 
money. I think it but justice to the Secretary of War, who has 
made these statements to Congress, to show the affirmative of this 
case — to show that there were cases, and that he had ground for making 
those statements. Whether General Howard is responsible for Mande- 
ville's acts or not, seeing that Mandeville gave his bond to General 
Howard, and that he was an agent of General Howard's for the identi- 
fication and payment of these claims; whether, I say, he is responsible 
or not for the acts of his agent, I do not pretend to say ; that is for the 
court to determine; but I am prepared to show that, by the records, 
there are several cases there in the Mandeville transaction which were 
not paid, and that these claimants have applied to the Adjutant-Gene- 
ral's Ofiice, since the Bureau has been transferred to tlie War Depart- 
ment, for payment, and I trust that I may be allowed to show all that 
the records will show in the premises. 

' The Accused, (through his counsel.) I would like to inquire liow the 
judge-advocate connects the opinion of tlie Attorney-General with these 
cases. 

The Court, (to the judge-advocate.) Can you answer that question ? 
As I understand it a suit has already been commenced on the Mande- 
ville bond. The United States have assumed that suit in its own name. 
I think that is in evidence. 

The Judge- Advocate. The Attorney-General, in his opinion to the 
Secretary of War, dated July 3, 1873, on page 6 of Exhibit B ; (the 
court will bear in mind that these one hundred and seventy-four cases 
are cases which were tried under the resolution of Congress of March 
29, 1867 ;) the opinion says : 

Bixt the joint resolution of 1867 is very explicit. All money paid under that act is paid 
directly to the Coramissiouer, and it is enacted that " he shall be responsible for the safe 
custody and faithful disbursement of the fund intrusted to him." Nothing is said about 
any of the assistant commissioners, or about any disbursing officer, and although it 
was probably necessary, and undoubtedly was lawful, for the Commissioner to appoint 
and employ disbursing officers beside himself, nevertheless he is responsible civilly 
under this act for their acts, the same as if done by himself; and even if he took bonds 
from them directly to the Government, this cannot relieve him of such liability. The 
Goverument may enforce both securities in order to indemnify itself for any loss which, 
through the default of a subordinate officer, it maj^ have sufiered. This liability might, 
in some respects, be enlarged by the terms of the bond given by the Commissioner, but 
it, of course, could not be in the least diminished. 

The Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, therefore, is liable for all the losses 
sustained by the Government througli the default of a subordinate disbursing officer, 
or other person employed by him in the disbursement of the moneys intrusted to him 
under the joint resolution of 1867. 

The Judge- Advocate. These one hundred and seventy-four are cases 
in which vouchers have already been filed in the Treasury and credit 
claimed therefor, and I am endeavoring to show by the records of the 
Bureau themselves, as turned over by the late Commissioner, General 



345 

Howard, that many of these cases have not beeu paid, aud that since 
the Bureau has been discontinued and these records turned over, these 
colored claimants have applied to the War Department to get their 
money, the vouchers having been filed therefor in the Treasury. 

By the Court. Has not that already been admitted by the accused ; 
that there were colored claimants who did not get their money, aud have 
since applied for it? 

The Judge-Advocate. I am going into particular instances. 

A Member of the Court said : If we are here to state an account and 
say just how many of these colored claimants are telling the truth and 
how many are telling lies, we should have to go into all that; but if it 
is only on the general question, one is as bad as fifty ; one is not as bad 
as five thousand, because that number out of forty -four thousand would 
show gross neglect. 

By a Member*of the Court, (to tlie judge-advocate.) Do you ex- 
pect to show in these ten cases that fraud has been committed 1 

The Judge- Advocate. I intend to show that these ten cases have 
not been paid. The gentleman may recollect that when Mandeville 
died there was found in his safe $9,000 odd. Mi-. Sauvinet, who went 
down there, found the money there, and reported to the Commissioner 
that there was about $17,000 due claimants, and he paid this $9,000 
out as far as it would go. Here are cases that came into the Bureau 
which show that the men did not get their pay. 

By a Member of the Court. Do you expect to prove that a fraud 
has been committed ; that the Government has been defrauded of money '? 

The Judge-Advocate. Why, certainly, sir. 

By a Member of the Court. Do you expect to prove that General 
Howard is connected with defalcation 1 

The Judge-Advocate. That is a question of law for the court to de- 
termine. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors beiug 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge- 
advocate announced that the court directs the rule proposed by a 
member to be entered as the decision of the court, as follows : 

That the court will not go into the examination of the question 
whether or not the one hundred and seventy-four or other claimants 
received, or did not receive, the amounts due them, except in cases 
where it is proposed to be shown that the amounts for such payments 
were not sent out by General Howard, or his chief disbursing olficer, or, 
having been sent out, were returned to General Howard or his chief dis- 
bursing ofiioer, aud at the date of the meeting of this court remained 
unaccounted for. 

The Judge- Advocate. If the court please, the court by this rule 
puts on me 

A Member of the Court objected to the judge-advocate objecting 
after the court had announced its decision. 

The Judge-Advocate. If the court please 

A Member of the Court. It is an order of the court, which I do not 
conceive the judge-advocate has any right to object to, after it has been 
made. 

The Judge-Advocate. I am not aware that I was making any ob- 
jection to the rule of the court, whatever my private opinion might be j 
but in this rule 

A Member of the Court. I insist upon my objection. 

The court was cleared for deliberation ; upon the doors being re-opened, 
the accused and his counsel being ijresent, the presideut of the court 
said to the judge-advocate, "Will you state what you intend to prove?" 



• 346 

The Judge-Advocate. May it please tlie court, I think I can show 
by this witness, and to the satisfaction of the court, first, that in the 
ten Mandeville cases, in the witness's hands, part of the 174 cases, 
General Howard received the necessary funds from the Treasury ; sec- 
ondly, that he or his agents subsequently filed vouchers in the Treasury, 
bearing his approval, on which credit was claimed for actual payment 
to the ten colored soldiers ; thirdly, that subsequently these ex-soldiers 
applied to the War Department for their bounty-money, alleging that 
they had not received it; fourthly, that on receipt of certain St. Clair 
Mandeville records in December last, an examination showed that they 
have no entry on their face to shon^ that these soldiers have been paid, 
(such column being left blank,) although receipts for the payment from 
these soldiers are now in the Treasury, and General Howard or his dis- 
bursing officer claims credit for the payment. I have already shown 
that Mandeville was appointed agent by General Howard, and gave a 
bond to him for $10,000. 

I respectfully submit that it will remain with General Howard to 
show that he used due diligence to make the payment, and did send the 
money to the proper parties, rather than for me to show that he did not. 
I have no evidence to present to the court to show that General How- 
ard sent out the money to pay these men. 

The Court. You may enter the record that the court has heard 
enough testimony on this branch of the case. 

The examination of Mr. Moody was then resumed. 
By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Do you know, Mr. Moody, anything about the turning over 
of funds to the disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau in 1872, by 
Major Brown, other than the general balances in the Treasury ? 

Answer. Other than the geileral balances shown by accounts to be 
due the United States? 

Question. Yes, sir. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Please state what you know on that subject. 

Answer. I find here a letter dated, " War Department, Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Oftice, Washington, D. C, July 13, 1873," that sets forth the facts 
in regard to the first lot of those cases received by Major McMillan ; I 
have the letter here. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is it an original letter? 

Answer. It is an original letter, sent by Captain McMillan ; the original 
letter rough was written by myself; I have not that rough here, but 
can produce it if necessary. I know that the facts set forth here [show- 
ing the letter], are correct. 

By the Court : 

Question. Did the letter come to you in due course of official buisness "? 
Answer. It did. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Who is the letter addressed to '? 

Answer. The Adjutant-General of the Army. [The letter will be found 
on pages 28 ami 29, Exhibit B.j At that time we only had 810,692.03 of 
this money : the mail addressed to the officers of the Freedmen's Bureau 
all came through my hands, and in opening it I found that there were 



347 

other checks that I supposed were of a similar character, and there- 
fore the action approved by the Adjutant-General on that letter was not 
taken until, I believe, in the month of August. That letter also appears 
on })age 30, marked letter B of Exhibit B. That submitted the case to 
the Auditor, and his reply of September 4 directed us what to do with 
that money. Since that date we have received several otlier sums of 
money from the Bureau, or from the different officers of the Bureau, 
some from General Howard himself, and some from General Balloch. 
By the Court : 

Question. What was the nature of this money? 

Answer. Cases precisely similar to these ; a case would come up in 
the natural course of our business, and probably by a letter from a 
claimant, asking about his money. We would examine into the case, 
and find tliat the money had been received back by the office. We would 
then submit the case to the Secretary of War or to the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral, with the recommendation that General Howard be called upon to 
turn that money over to us. In every case so submitted, with the excep- 
tion of two cases, the cases of Peter House and John Aiubers, we 
have received the money from the Bureau. 

By the Court : 
Question. Those two cases \vill fall clearly under the ruling of the court, 
namely, moneys that had been sent out, and had come back again. 
By the Judge- Advocate : 
Question. What are those cases ? 

Answer. On the 3d day of March, 1873, we received from James K. 
Dougherty, who signs as attorney for claimant, a letter dated "Newport, 
K C, February 24, 1873," in the case of John Ambers, ])rivate Com- 
pany B, Fourteenth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, which 
was settled by certificate 497146. The amount was sent to Ca^^t. Lewis 
E. Granger, and appropriated by him to his own use. 
By the Court: 
Question. Was he an agent of the Bureau "? 

Answer. I think Captain Granger was an officer in the Eegular Army, 
and probably was made an agent of the Bureau for the purpose of 
paying these bounties, but I am not positive about that. 
By the Court : 
Question. Where is he now ? 
By a member of the Court. He has been dismissed from the service. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What was the amount? 

Answer. John Ambers's was $82.25. Peter House's was $188.25. There 
were certain references upon the "jacket" in the case of John Ambers, 
which led us to an examination of the records, and I believe that the 
following facts were ascertained : that a report had previously been 
made in this case, and that Captain Granger had been tried by court- 
martial, and the amount appropriated stopped against his pay — $208.50; 
the amount that he had appropriated to his own use in the two cases. 
By the Court : 

Question. Was enough stopped to cover these two claims ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; enough to cover these two claims. Each claimant 
admitted to have received a certain amount of the money. That amount 
of money was in the usual course of business placed in the hands of the 
disbursing officers of the Bureau. 



348 

By the Court : 

Question. And readied the rightful parties ? 

Answer. No, sir ; there is no evidence of payment of that amount 
since it was received by the officers of the Bureau ; it is borne on the 
record as having been paid previously, at the time when it was alleged 
that Granger had paid the money, but there is no evidence of payment 
since the receipt of that money by the Bureau. 

By the Court : 

Question. But do the parties assert their claims since in this affair ? 

Answer. In this letter of Dougherty of February 24, 1874, that I 
refer to, there is an allegation that the party has not received his money. 
It says : 

Ambers has not received any compensation for his certificate : and havinpj seen your 
notice in regard to such sases through the press, I concluded to lay such facts before 
you, at the request of said Ambers, hoping that you might render him some assistance. 

That is in the letter addressed to the Adjutant-General of the Army. 

The Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. By whom ? 

Answer. James R. Dougherty, attorney for Ambers. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. How do you fix the fact that the money was turned over 
after having been stopped from the pay of Captain Granger ? 

Answer. There is a memorandum prepared, which I have here, which 
says there is no record showing the receipt oi" the draft called for — that 
is, the draft of the Treasury Department transferring the $208.50 ; but 
the fact oT the amount having been received by the Bureau is shown 
by a letter addressed to Maj. Andrew Coats, Bureau agent at New 
Berne, N. C, February 28, 1871, by the chief of the claim division, 
stating that funds to the credit of Peter House were then in possession 
of the Bureau, and would be paid to Tempey House, alleged widow, on 
receipt of proper evidence. This matter was placed before General How- 
ard, and I see by a memorandum in my handwriting that General Balloch 
called at the office with his check-books ; that I learned from General 
Balloch's check-book that on February 28, 1871, checks were drawn as 
follows : On the assistant treasurer, New York, No. 187, Tempey 
House, $120.25 ; No. 188, John Ambers, $88,25. These checks were re- 
turned to General Balloch February 6, 1872, and a new check on New 
York, drawn to General Howard's order, for $208.50 ; check numbered 
G80, dated October 12, 1871— check antedated from February 6, 1872, 
to October 12, 1871 — and there is no evidence that we can find that that 
money ever went out, or was paid to either of these two parties since. 
There has been considerable correspondence between our office and 
General Howard in regard to it ; his last letter is March 3, 1874. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) This matter is apparently for the 
same amount — the matter reported in full in one of those letters read by 
Mr. Cauldwell at the last session — that $208.50 ; a whole explanation of 
it and report of it. 

The Court. Is it part of the record I 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Yes, sir. 

The Court. Well, it will be time for you to call attention to it in a 
moment. The witness has stated simply with regard to the record as it is 
in his hands; he is not stating anything as to the actual fact. 

The Judge-Advocate. Proceed, now, with your answer, Mr. Moody. 



I 



349 

Answer. The only further answer that I can give in relation to this 
matter is that this party, John Ambers, is applying for his money, and 
we have no money to pay him. We never received the money; and ex- 
actly the same condition exists in tlie case of Peter House. If he should 
ever apply for it we should have no money to pay him. 

By the Court : 

Question. Still the money may be in the Treasury, but not in your 
particular branch I 

Answer. It may be in the Treasury, but still not available for Captain 
McMillan. He could not draw it out ; that is, he could not unless it 
was transferred to him by the officers of the late Bureau. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question, What i:)aper is that you have in your hand? [pointing.] 

Answer. This is a letter from the Third Auditor of the Treasury, 
dated November 10, 1873, in reply to one from the Adjutant-General's 
Office asking whether this sum of $208.50 had been taken up and ac- 
counted for in the Refugees and Freedmeu's fund. 

[Witness read the letter, which was found to be part of the record of 
the last day's proceedings.] 

The Witness. The money, as I understand, was deposited with the 
Treasurer of the United States and carried to General Howard's account 
on the refugees and freedmen's fund. But that money is never 
accounted for to the Treasury until it is taken up on an account-current, 
and a voucher for its disbursement filed. That, the Auditor says, has 
not been done. 

By the Court : 
Question. Would not General Howard's draft on him bring the 
money — on the Treasurer of the United States 1 

Answer. If he had that amount to his credit it would. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. As I understand it, that money would be "bounty-money" 
and not "refugees and freedmen's fund?" 

Answer. It would be " bounty-money." 

Question. Which would come into the hands of the disbursing officer 
through the Pay Department ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And not from the " refugees and freedmen's appropriation ?" 

Answer, Yes, sir. 

Question. Eeferring to page 31, Exhibit B, what do you know on the 
subject of an alleged deficiency of $3,754.69? 

Answer. After the transfer of funds had been made to Major McMil- 
lan, I concluded, after consultation with him, that it would be well to 
ascertain whether the Bureau officers had turned over to us money 
enough to meet all the claims borne on their records as unpaid. For 
that purpose I had a detail of clerks made from the Adjutant-General's 
Office and set them to work upon the bounty-registers to prepare from 
those bounty-registers a list of claims borne on the registers as unpaid, 
with the view of taking the aggregate amount of that list, and seeing 
whether we had received sufficient money to pay the claims unpaid. 

By the Accused, (through his counsej:) 
Question. I should like to interpose a question here to the judge- 
advocate : What is the object of taking this testimony ; what is the 



350 

purpose of it? The Secretary of War in his communicatiou says that 
this has beeu paid back before any proceedings were had. 

The JudgtE-Advocate. I am going into this matter, if tlie court 
please, with reference to the subject of " confusion of records," which is 
quite an item in the afitirmative of this case ; and I am endeavoring to 
do it consecutively, taking all the allegations through. The testimony 
of the witness will no doubt show the court that the inquiry is pertinent. 
I presume it will. AVe have not touched upon that subject before now. 
It comes in by way of explanation, as showing the difficulties nuder 
which the War Department were acting, after the discoutinuauce of the 
Bureau, in settling these claims. 

By the Court : 

Question. Claims alleged to arise out of the neglect of the late Com- 
missioner ■? 

The Judge- Advocate. Yes, sir. 

(Witness continued.) Those lists were all carefully prepared from the 
bounty-registers. 

By a Member of the Court : 

Question. What are the bounty-registers ? 

Answer. I have one of them here, [pointing to book.] After they were 
prepared from those bonnty-registers we next compared them carefully 
with the jackets, of what were known as the unpaid "files of jackets," 
and in every case where we found that the bounty-register and the 
"jacket" both indicated a case as "unpaid," we took it for granted that 
it was unpaid. We found quite a number of cases, however, on the reg- 
isters as unpaid that the jacket would show payment. Of course we 
erased them from the lists that had been prepared. After this compar- 
ison was made we took the aggregate amount of the lists and we de- 
ducted from that the amount received, which left that apparent defi- 
ciency of 3,750 and some odd dollars, whatever the amount is, and the 
fact was immediately reported. We theu went to- work endeavoring 
to start the operations of our office, and we continued until about 
in December, 1872. 1 think in the meanwhile, however, we loaned 
these lists to the Second Auditor, and about the middle of December 
I received from there a memorandum list covering over $10,000 
of cases that were on my list as unpaid, that they reported as paid, that 
they had vouchers filed in the Treasury Department for. Upon an ex- 
amination I found that we had sent out a number of these cases as they 
were borne upon the bounty-registers, and the jackets indicated that 
they were not paid. We had sent them out to our disbursing officers 
for payment. We were consequently obliged to stop at once, suspend- 
ing all payments, and go into an examination of our records, and com- 
pare them thoroughly with the records of the Second Auditor's Office. 
We did that -, we were about one month engaged in that work ; we theu 
made a correction in the bounty-register, charging cases up as " paid," 
where they were shown to be paid, by the record in the Second Audit- 
or's Office. 

There was also a list of cases that we had not on our lists, that the 
Auditor reported as " unpaid." W^e have not as yet examined into these 
cases. They are now suspended. They are on the suspended tile. W^e 
would not paj" them at all without a thorough examination. 

Question. When you say you went over your lists, the bounty-regis- 
ters and jackets of cases unpaid, how much did you find those two rec- 
ords showed to be unpaid before you undertook to consult the Second 
Auditor's list ? 



351 

Answer. I cannot give you the exact figures, but tbe amount un- 
paid, as shown by those lists, amounted to 3,700 and some odd dollars 
more than we had received. 

By the Court : 
Question. More than you had got in money ? 
Answer. More than we had got in money. 

By the Judge- Ad vooATE : 

Question. Then you say when you then referred to the Second Audit- 
or's records, that you found by those that there was an apparent defi- 
ciency of 10,000 and odd dollars ? 

Answer. No, sir ; it was not exactly a deficiency. They were all 
claims that were on our lists and on the registers of the Bureau as 
unpaid; they reported -1 10,000 and upward as having been paid. The 
Auditor reported that he had vouchers for those cases with the accounts 
of the disbursing oflicers of the late Bureau. 

By the Couet : 

Question. So you scratched those off before striking your balance of 
3,700 odd dollars? 

Answer. O, no, sir; that was before that time. We received that 
information about the $10,000 and upward long afterward — about the 
middle of December. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. The matter is not exactly plain to me as yet. 

Answer. This is a memorandum that I received from the Auditor, 
enumerating the cases on which he reports $10,008.24, cases paid, re- 
ported due, by the Adjutant-General. In the absence of this informa- 
tion, if any of these claimants had applied to us, we would have paid 
them the money, and they would, consequently, have been paid a second 
time. Then there is a small list covering $1,930.60 of cases unpaid, that 
are marked up as paid on our registers. 

When the comparison was made between the Second Auditor's state- 
ments and our lists on the settlement of General Balloch's accounts, I 
have been informed that there was only a discrepancy of $U.99, which 
indicated that our lists, as ^\"e prepared them, were correct. Whether 
it was $2.99 less than the amount or $2.99 more, I cannot say. 

On motion the court then, at 3.40 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to- 
morrow, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



THIRTIETH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, A^jril 21, 1874—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present 

1. General WiUiam T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 



352 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Coi; George ^A^ Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A.; 
G. Col. J. J. Eeynokls, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Edgar Ketchum, 
esq., and George W. Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The witness, John S. Moody, appeared before the court, and his testi- 
mony of yesterday having been read to him, it was pronounced by him 
to be correct as recorded. 

After the reading, the witness said: In continuation of my last answer 
yesterday I have a memorandum which shows that the total of the list 
of unpaid cases prepared from the bounty-registers amounted to 
$733,718.46. I believe I prefer, before testifying in relation to that, to 
obtain the ligures and memorandum that 1 made at the time 1 found 
this deficiency of $3,754.09. I can bring that paper with me ; I have it at 
the office. 

The Judge- Advocate. It will not be necessary to be so specific. 

Answer. I will say, then, that the amount of $733,718.46, is the amount 
of the lists that we prepared from the bounty-registers, and the Second 
Auditor having found that on that list of cases that we gave him, 
there were $10,008.24 that had been paid, consequently that amount 
should be deducted from those, which would leave $723,710.22. There 
was then a list amounting to $1,893.70 and $37.23 of cases shown unpaid 
by the records of the Second Auditor's Office, that were not on our list ; 
consequently they would have to add that amount to the $723,710.22. 
The Auditor also found, I believe, the item of attorney's fees not paid 
which had to go into that amount. There was $4,797.89 of short pay- 
ments. For instance, in making a settlement the Auditor would allow 
bounty under different acts of Congress, and by the death of the party 
to whom that bounty was payable part of the bounty would revert to 
the Government. I believe generally the $100 bounty, under the act 
of July, 1860, reverted to the Government in such cases. In taking 
off ourlist we noticed in some of the cases the amount paid claimant 
was $100 less than the amount shown to have been settled or found due 
by the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and in the column of remarks 
would be a " $100 reverting to the Government." We took no notice of 
that and did not put it on oar lists. This $4,797.89 of short payments 
which was added on, and another short payment of 50 cents, made al- 
together, $730,801.66. After our lists had been corrected and the records 
had all been corrected, if we had made a new list, that would have been 
the amount that should have been shown due by that new list. The 
Auditor in his settlement found $730,798.67 as due, which left a difier- 
ence of $2.99 only. 

By the President : 

Question. And to complete that sura General Balloch added tih&t 
$3,000 and a fraction to which you have been testifying? 

Answer. I believe the moneys that General Balloch turned over — 
$3,410.64 in money received from him, and $32.50 received from General 
Howard. Then the way the Auditor makes up that balance is by adding 
in the Kunkle moneys and other moneys that are due there. 



353 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Refemng to the upper part of page 3, of Exhibit B, men- 
tioning items of 836,314.77 and $73,048.40, please state what you know 
about that matter. [Ex. C^ handed witness.] 

Answer. The item of $30,314.77, as stated on page 3, is erroneous. It 
sliould be $134.30 more. That part of the letter on page 12 of Assist- 
ant Adjutant- General Thomas M. Vincent, which commences, "the 
receipts, exclusive of appropriations by Cong:ress," &c., should read this 
way : " The receipts, including appropriations bv Congress, were 
$186,284.24.'' Of that amount only $13,400.14 (statement E) was, in 
m}' opinion, available for the payment of expenses incurred prior to 
June 30, 1871 ; and if this judgment be correct the total expenditures, 
$28,990.07, for " schools and asylums," as well as the ($20,918.54 minus 
$13,460.14) $7,458.40 for other objects, were without " warrant of law." 
I am stating the way it should read. I wrote that letter myself, and it 
was sent to General Vincent, and another letter written, a " fair rough" as 
we call it. The fair rough read very much as I read the sentence there. 
General Vincent supposing that he would make the matter plainer, intro- 
duced the figures $186,284.24 minus $165,000, leaving $20,784.24, and 
then overlooked the fact that he was including a balance of receipts as 
a balance of expenditures. 

By the CouET : 

Question. Is it the intention of the judge-advocate to show that these 
payments were erroneous ? 

The Counsel for the Accused. We cannot object to this because 
it goes to show a confusion of records in the Adjutant-General's Office, 
as well as of the records in the Freedmen's Bureau. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Go right on and state in answer to the original question as 
to this $36,000— what it is. 

Answer. Shall I use the correct figures or the amounts there I 

The Court said : We have being looking at $36,314.77 as a specific 
fact. 

The Witness. The figures opposite " misapplication " are intended to 
show the amount of money taken from the appropriation for the fiscal 
year 1872, and disbursed for schools and asylums, and for expenses in- 
curred prior to the first day of July, 1871. The figures $73,048.40 is 
the amount of money that was taken from the money held in trust by 
the Bureau to pay bounties of colored soldiers and used for thepuri30se 
of paying the expenses of the Bureau at a time they had no appropria- 
tion available. 

By the Court : 

Question. In the months of January and February ? 

Answer. In the months of January and February, and part of March, 
and then again for the months of May, June, and part of July. There 
was no loss in the paying of bounty-money. It was re-imbursed from 
the deficiency appropriation, and re-imbursed from the appropriation 
of 1872. The total, $73,000, was not re-imbursed from the deficiency 
appropriation ; $48,807.57 was reimbursed from the deficiency appropri- 
ation, and $25,240.83 was re-imbursed from tlie appropriation of 1872. 

By the Jlt)ge- Advocate : 
Question. Have you made any data on this subject which you can 
present for the information of the court ? 
23 H c 



354 

Answer. I have prepared a statement that shows the vouchers going^ 
to make up this item of $36,314.77.- 

The Court. Is it the same paper that was sworn to by Harrison ? 

The Judge-Advocate. Yes, sir. He swore to the abstracting- of 
these vouchers. I have taken them with Mr. Moody again, and gone 
over these amounts, and desire to put in the tabular statements pre- 
pared from the abstracting of the vouchers, so that the court will be 
able to examine it, to see for themselves just how the matter stands. 

The Witness. Eeferriug to statement on pages 13, 14, and 15, of Ex- 
hibit B, the tables are correct. The error, as I said, resulted from a 
mistake of General Vincent in inserting certain flgures in the letter. 
If it had been as originally written, it would have given the same amount 
there as this tabular statement shows. . 

Question. Go on, and explain the tabular statements on page 13. 

Answer. The statement on page 13 is a statement showing the dis- 
bursements nuide b}' the late Bureau Ilefugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, from January 1 to July 31, 1871, as stated in accounts 
rendered by the disbursing officer to the Treasury Department. That 
statement shows that, on the 1st of January, 1871, the Bureau had 
$1,301.98 on hand. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is that tabular statement as we see it there correct ? 

Answer. This, as ])rinted, is correct. 

Question, liefer now to letter B, tabular statement, on page 14, Ex- 
hibit B. 

Answer. That statement was also compiled under my direction ; partly 
by me and partly nnder my direction, and I know it is a correct state- 
ment. 

Question. Eefer now to letter C, tabular statement, on the same page. 

Answer. Letter C was compiled under my direction, partly by myself, 
and, in my opinion, is correct. 

Question. Eefer now to letter D, on the same page. What have you 
to say as to that ? 

Answer. That statement also shows the correct amount received by 
the Bureau from July 1, 1871, to June 30, 1872. 
By a Member of the Court : 

Question. As shown by the records of the Bureau ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; as shown by the records of the Bureau, and by the 
accounts as rendered to the Treasury Department. 
By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Eefer now to letter E, on page 15 of the same exhibit. 

Answer. Letter E is a statement compiled that shows the amount 
that, in my own opinion, could have been used to defray expenses prior 
to June 30, 1871. It was received in the year 1872. That might prop- 
erly have been made to pay expenses prior to June 30, 1871. 

Question. From Avhat have those tabular statements been made up ? 

Answer. They have been made up from vouchers that were filed in 
the Treasury Department. 

Question. Have you seen this Exhibit C^ ? 

Answ^er. Yes, sir, I have. 

Question. What relationship has this exhibit to the vouchers that 
you speak of? What proportion of those vouchers does it contain in 
an abstracted form 1 

Answer. Those tabular statements were prepared from these state- 
ments attached to the tabular statements as they follow on Exhibit C^. 



355 

Questiou. What relationship does that siim of §13,400.14, oa page 15 
of Exhibit B, have to thfese prior tabular statements in the same exhibit? 
Where does it come in, if at all ! 

Answer. It comes in in statement 0. We used it in connection with 
statement C in order to determine the exact amount appropriated for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, that was used for " schools and 
asylums," and for expenses incurred prior to July 1, 1871. Deducting- 
that $13,400.14 from the 149,909.21, it gives the amount. 

Question. You say in the letter E, on page 15, " receipts in the year 
ending June 30, 1872, that might pro]>erly be used to defray expenses 
incurred prior to June 30, 1871." Where have you gotten those items 
from I 

Answer. Those items are taken — the items that go to make up the 
$13,400.14 — from the cash-books of the Bureau. In anuiunts they agree 
with the amounts taken up on the accounts-current, but I think the 
cash-books explain them more fully than they are explained on the ac-- 
counts-current ; and therefore, in making up that statement, I adopted 
the cash-books as a guide. 

Question. W^here have you abstracted those statements in letter E ? 

Answer. The statements will be found on Exhibit C "^j with an explan- 
atory statement following. 

[The judge-advocate otfered and put in evidence that part of the 
exhibit in evidence, as explanatory, which he had not yet put in.] 

Question. Do you know, Mr. Moody, why those tabular statements 
that I have been referring to w^ere prepared ? 

Answer. Shortly after the publication of the report of General Yin- 
cent to the Adjutant-General of October 7, 1872, and the reply of 
General Howard dated February 7, 1873, rumors reached us by 
certain parties who said that they could explain, they thought, a great 
deal of the confusion in the records of the late Bureau that was referred 
to in these communications of General Vincent and of General Howard. 
They were the subject of comment in the press, and I presume these 
l^arties obtained their information in regard to the controversy from the 
press. Along in the fore part of March, 1873, a gentleman by the name of 
Shaw came to me and told me that he had read this matter in the press, 
and that he thought he could explain the reason of the confusion. He 
then went on and gave me a storj^ about some estimates made for appro- 
priations to assist schools, which Congress refused to appropriate be- 
cause no written contracts had been made for them. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Who was Shaw "? 

Answ(?r. I do not know, but I think he is a lawyer, or a newspaper 
correspondent, residing on G street. 

Question. Anybody connected with the Bureau or the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Oflice ! 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

By the Court, (to the judge-advocate :) 

Question. Please state what you design to prove now by this witness 
in this connection ? 

The Judge-Advocate. On this point, I have simply asked him if he 
knew why these abstracts were prepared. My desire is to show that 
they were prepared for the information of the Adjutant-General's De- 
partment, in view of certain statements which were made by outside 
parties to the office with reference to certain alleged transactions, and 



these statements were prepared to ascertain whether the statements 
were true or not as made. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) The statement of Shaw ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

A Member of the Court. It seems to me that we are traveling en- 
tirely out of the record. 

The Court. If the judge-advocate desires to press the point, we 
shall have to close the doors and decide it. 

The Judge-Advocate. I do not consider it material at all. 

Question. Mr. Moody, has your attention been called in anywise to 
a transaction on the subject of $19,446.54 interest-money ? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; it has. 

Question. Please state what you know on that subject, of your own 
knowledge ? 

Answer. I know from the records, in relation to this matter, what has 
been developed. 

By the Court : 
Question, Your knowledge is derived from the record, exclusively! 
Answer. Y^es, sir. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Then state what you know from the record? 

Answer. The matter was first brought about — the first information 
we had in relation to the matter was in a letter received from General 
Balloch, 1 believe, in which he made the statement that he had invested 
some $334,875 in United States bonds. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is that a part of our record ? 

Answer. I do not believe it is. It is a letter dated December 29, 
transmitted by the late Commissioner on December 30. It is referred 
to on page 5 of Exhibit B, part 2, in i^aragraph 3. 

Question. Have you that letter f 

Answer. I believe I have. This is the original letter. [Producing it.] 

The Court, (to the judge-advocate.) Is there any question of con- 
troversy about the interest-money ? 

The Judge-Advocate. There is a material point in it with reference 
to a letter which I have subsequently to submit. 

The Court. The court seem to wish to limit the inquiry as far as we 
can. What do you desire to i^rove by this inquiry ? 

The Judge-Advocate. The court allowed on the cross-examination 
of Mr. Cauldwell a number of letters from General Howard to go in on 
the subject of this transaction as showing what action he had taken 
about it, and wJien. This is a matter going a good deal into the question 
of time as to whether this matter was first ascertained in the War De- 
partment or not, and who first ascertained it. 

Question. You have said that was the first 

Answer. That was the first intimation we had of the investment of 
this money in United States bonds ; the $334,000 investment. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel.) Whom do you mean by we ? 

Answer. Our oflice. On January 5, 1874, we were in receipt of a 
letter from General Balloch, in reply to one addressed to the Commis- 
sioner, in which he submits a statement as to the expenditures from the 
$19,446.57, page 8, (Exhibit B, part 2.) In that statement there ap- 
peared the item of $10,652.25. After this letter was transmitted to 
Congress it was published in the newspapers, I believe, on the morning 



357 

of January S, 1874. I saw a publication in tlie Baltimore American in 
wUicli that item for schools and asylums was given as $16,C50.1}r). Hav- 
ing been engaged in the abstracting of these previous accounts, [pointing 
toExhibit C^,] I had noticed the Shepherd voucher for $16,{)52.25. I 
immediately went to General Vincent, and called his attention to the 
fact that there was only $2 difference between the Shepherd voucher 
and the amount published in the paper. So we thought it was a 
singular thing, and he referred then again to the original letter, and 
saw that it was the exact amount of the Shepherd voucher. He imme- 
diately went to report the fact to the Secretary of War. I received my 
instructions then to make a thorough investigation of the records with 
a view to ascertain whether that money had been accounted for on this 
" refugees and freedmen's fuud." I examined those records thoroughly. 
I gave them as thorough an examination as. I possibly could, and 
finally came to the conclusion that it had not been accounted for on the 
" refugees and freedmen's fund,'' or at least that there was no record 
that it had been accounted for on the records turned over to us by the 
late Bureau. I reported that fact, and I believe, about January 17, 
another communication was written to General Howard, directing that 
these vouchers be rendered through the War Department. That letter 
remained unanswered, and toward the latter end of January, I think 
it was, another letter was addressed to him, calling his attention to the 
previous communication and directing a reply. We received in reply 
to that a letter from General Howard to General Balloch, indorsed by 
General Balloch, in which he said that, as the Adjutant-General imputed 
to him direct falsity in regard to this $19,000, lie declined to hold fur- 
ther communication on the subject. A few days after that, I believe on 
the 14th of February, we received a letter from General Howard, a 
letter inclosing one from the Third Auditor of the Treasury, stating that 
the money had been accounted for. That surprised me considerably, 
for I could not find it in the record. I thought I might have made a 
mistake. I went to the Third Auditor's Office, carrying with me Gen- 
eral Howard's letter and this letter of the Third Auditor, and I saw Mr. 
Cauldwell and asked him to let me examine into the accounts. He did 
so, and I there discovered that the Shepherd voucher was one of the 
vouchers filed to cover this $19,000 of interest. I made a pencil copy 
of the disbursement, as shown by the account-current, at the time, 
which I have with me. 

The Court. There is no question as to the fact. There is simply a 
question as to the development of it. 

Answer. I immediately returned from theTreasury Department to the 
Adjutant-General's Office and informed General Vincent of the fact that 
the Shepherd voucher was, as we supposed, one of these vouchers 
rendered to cover that interest. He reported that to the Secretary of 
War, which led to a letter asking for copies of those accounts, which 
was delivered personally to the Secretary of the Treasury by General 
Vincent. We obtained copies of the accounts on the IGth February, 
I believe. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. When you saw Mr. Cauldwell at the Third Auditor's Office, 
did you have any conversation with him on the subject of this account 
that had been rendered ? 

Answer. 1 remarked to him that there was a letter, (holding the letter 
of the Third Auditor in my hand.) I said " This letter surprises me very 
much. 1 cannot find anything on the records of the late Bureau showing 



358 

that the money has ever beeu accounted for, and I am responsible for 
that statement that it had not been accounted for. This letter shows 
it has been accounted for. I want to see if I have made a mistake, and 
if so, where I have made it." Mr. Cauldwell laughed and said, " I guess 
you were right when you wrote your letter, because the accounts have 
only been filed here within a short time." He then sent for them and I 
examined them. 

Question. What was tlie date — fix it positively — on which you had 
this conversation with General Vincent after seeing the Baltimore 
American ? 

Answer. It was that same day, the 8th of January, because I went 
immediately to his ofiice, after I had noticed that i)eculiar fact. I had 
sent, however, in the first jilace, and obtained a memorandum of the 
amount of the Shepherd voucher, and there was just the two dollars 
discrepancy between the amount as published in that paper and the 
amount of the voucher. 

Question. What paper is that which you hold in your hand ? — [point- 
ing.] 

Answer. It is an inquiry from G. Moyers, at INIemphis, Tenn., January 
6, 1874, relative to the claim of liichard Long, Conqiany K, Sixty-first 
United States Colored Troops, and Julius Jones, Company H, Sixty- 
eighth United States Colored Troops, for bounty ; and that letter was 
received at the Freedmen's Branch of the Adjutant-General's Office on 
the 10th day of January, 1874. February IG, 1874, Gilbert Moyers 
writes again from Mempliis, Tenn., relative to the claims of the same 
parties. I have the jackets in the cases of the two soldiers named 
in Moyers's communication. The certificate in the case of Richard Long 
is 341104; in the case of Julius Jones, 380070. 

Question. Please state what you know about those cases! 

Answer. The amounts shown to be due the claimants in those cases — 
Eichard Long, $218.98, and Julius Jones, $223.03 — are shown by the 
wrappers of the Bureau to have been paid on the 13th June, 1868. An 
examination of the records, however, developed the fact that the money 
in those cases, and in the cases of five others — the cases of William 
Austin, private Company I, Sixty third United States Colored Troops, 
settled by certificate 3G6415 for $14.40 ; George Taylor, musician. Com- 
pany F, One hundred and tenth United States Colored Troops, settled 
by certificate 358042 for $200 ; the case of Joseph Hewey, late private 
Conii)any F, Fifty-fifth United States Colored Troops, settled by certifi- 
cate 373170 for $305.41 ; the case of John Frazer, Companv D, Sixty-first 
United States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 301379 for |2'42.25; 
and the case of Jackson Doyle, Company I, Fifty-fifth United States Col- 
ored Troops, settled by certificate 380450 for $271.50— were found. The 
money sent in those cases was found to be returned to the chief dis- 
bursing officer of the late Bureau. My impression is that it was some 
time in the month of April, 1869. ^o action whatever in relation to 
these cases has been had by our ofiice up to the present time. We 
have not money to pay the claimants ; and if the fact had not been dis- 
covered that the money was returned to the chief disbursing officer, 
these two cases would have beeu com])laint cases — Julius Jones and 
Richard Long — and would have been submitted, upon the receipt of 
further evidence as to the non-payment, to the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury. The statement contained in these letters is hardly, in my 
opinion, sufficient to justify action in a complaint case ; but, having dis- 
covered the fact that the money was returned to the chief disbursing 
oflicer, we would now endeavor to make an investigation to determine 



359 

whether that money had ever beeu subsequently paid or sent out. If 
not, we woukl call upon General Howard to refund the amount of money 
to us, in order to meet all of those cases, because those two cases de- 
veloped the fact that the money had been returned in all of those cases. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Has such an investigation been made ; if so, what is the 
result of that investigation ? 

Answer. We have examined the records in all of those cases, and we 
find that in the case of Joseph Hewey the money was subsequently re- 
turned to the disbursing officer and by him paid to the claimant — borne 
on his records as having been paid to the claimant. In none of the 
other cases can we find that money was again sent out from the Bureau. 
I have here the record of the disbursing agent at Memphis. In the 
case of liichard Long, Company K, Sixty-first United States Colored 
Troops, it seems that $218.98, and that vouchers for -$218.98, were re- 
turned to the Bureau on the Gth day of June, 1808 ; that, on the 17th of 
June, 1808, the money was received from the cbief disbursing officer; 
that, upon the 13th day of April, 1869, the money was returned to the 
chief disbursing officer. In the case of Joseph Hewey, Company F, 
Fifty-fifth United States Colored Troops, the records show that, on the 
21st of February, 1808, vouchers were received by the disbursing agent 
at Memphis, Tenn. ; tbat, upon the 7th of September, 1868, the vouchers 
were returned, signed, to thechief disbursing officer of the Bureau; that, 
on the 15th of Se[)tember, 1868, money to pay the claim was received by 
the disbursing officer at Mem]ihis; that, on the 23d of November, 1869, 
the money was paid to the claimant ; that he was identified by J. H. 
Cherry, cai^tain of Company F, Fifty-fifth, and John Douglas, private 
Company F, Fifty-fifth. In this case the money was sent back April 13, 
1869, tbe same as in the other cases ; and we find, in this case, a record 
that it was subsequently sent out. There has evidently been an erasure 
of the red-ink note that the money was returned, and the witnesses for 
identification have been written over that. It .appears on the face of 
the Tennessee record itself. 

In the other cases tbe records are precisely similar as in the case of 
liichard Long. The red-ink mark in the column '" by whom identified," 
is, " returned to the chief dlshurslng officer, April 13, X809 ;" indicating 
that money was, on tbat date, returned to the chief disbursing officer. 
There is no record that the money was ever again received by Palmer, 
the agent, and paid to these parties, nor can we find in tbe press copy- 
books in the Bureau or in any other books, that it was again sent out. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Do I understand the witness to testify how his attention 
was called to these cases ? 

The Judge- Advocate. Will you please state how your attention was 
called to these cases"? 

Answer. By tbe receipt of these communications. One was received 
January 10, 1871; the other, February 20, 1874. As I have already 
remarked, on examining tbe records in these cases we discovered that 
the money was returned, and at tbe same time tbe money in all these 
otber cases was returned. I bave not been able to ascertain the reason 
why that money was returned, but I presume it was because, at the 
time, tbe chiimants could not be found. That was the usual reason why 
the money was returned from the agent to the cbief disbursing officer. 

Question. What are those cases that you now bold in your bauds ? 

Answer. Tbese are cases of claims borne upon the records of tbe Bu- 



360 

roan as liaving beeu paid. The first is tlie claim of Mariom Hord, mother 
of Henry J. Hord, Company C, Fifth United States Colored Cavalry, 
settled by certificate 480150. This is stated on tlie records of the late 
Bureau to have been paid May 13, 1809. Previous to the lOtli of July, 
1873, but in the month of June, 1873, we received from the First Na- 
tional liank of Indianapolis, Indiana, a check drawn by General Balloch 
on the Assistant Treasurer of the United States, at New York, for 
$303.10, payable to the order of Mariom Hord. That check had finally, 
by clerical error, been sent to that bank. It was intended to have been 
sent to the cashier of the First National Bank at Ironton, Ohio. I pre- 
sume it had laid there from May, 1809, up to that time when they re- 
turned it to the Adjutant-Geueral's Office. We forwarded that check 
to the Treasury Department with a request that the amount of the same 
might be taken from any balance that was standing to General Balloch's 
credit in New York, and placed to the credit of Captain McMillan. The 
Secretary of the Treasury reported to the Secretary of War that our 
request had been complied with, and inclosed a receipt for $303.16 as 
received from Captain McMillan, per General George W. Balloch, for 
that amount of money. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. What case is that from that you hold in your hand ? [Point- 
ing.] 

Answer. I have a letter from Taylor G. Ewing, who signs as adminis- 
trator, making inquiry for the discharge of Samuel jNIcDonald, late pri- 
vate Company K, Fifteenth United States Colored Troops. The letter 
is dated Nashville, December 18, 1873, and is as follows : 

Second Auditok, United States Treasury, 

JVaKhuHjIon, D. C: 
Dear Sir: Sanmel McDonald's tliseharge as private Company K, Fifteenth United 
States Colored Troops, was put on file dnrino- J. B. Coom's term, 1869, and have not 
heard anj'thing from it since. Please let me know the reason I cannot hear anything 
from it, 

And oblige your obedient servant, 

TAYLOR G. EWIXG, 

Admhiitilrator, 
No. 48 Cedar street, Nashville, Tenu. 

That letter seems to have beeu returned by the Auditor as follows : 

Treasury Department, Second Auditor's Office, 

February 14, 1874, 
Kespectfully returned. 

The discharge certificate of Samuel McDonald, late private Company K, Fifteenth 
United States Colored Troops, was sent to the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, 
Washington, D. C, together with Treasury certificate No, 5(3r245, issued in settlement 
of his claim for bounty, April 20, 1870, 

If the claimant did not receive his discharge, application therefor should be made to 
Captain James McMillan, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, D. C. 

E. B. FRENCH, 

Auditor, cj-c, 
By H. H, W. 

It seems that he then wrote, although the address is not given to the 
letter, but it was received by us, with au addition to it, to this effect : 

Please let me hear from this paper as soon as you can possibly. This business on. 
my part as administrator must be closed in April next, 1874, 

TAYLOR G, EWING, 

Administrator. 
March 20, 1874. 



That is the letter received by the Adjutant-General's Office. 

Question. What did the investigation into the case show ? 

Answer. The investigation into this case disclosed the fact that the 
money in this case, and in the other cases, was returned by the disbursing 
officer at Xashville, Tenn., to the chief disbursing officer of the Bureau. 
I have the records of the disbursing officer at Nashville, Tenn. Those 
records show that in the case of Samuel 3IcDonahl, on May 19, 1870, 
he received from the chief disbursing officer vouchers and the soldier's 
discharge ; that upon the 0th day of June, 1870, he returned to the chief 
disbursing officer vouchers receipted ; that on June IG, 1870, he received 
check 3100 for $294,90. Then there is a note in red ink, " This claimant 
admits that he is not Samuel McDonald, but the lather of the soldier, 
who has died ; that he represented his said son to get his money, think- 
ing that the i>roper way." " Check and discharge returned to the chief 
disbursing officer July 19, 1870." " Receipt on file." " Salina McDon- 
ald, mother in this case, is living." "She raised the boy until he was 
18 years old, and " — I cannot decipher a word ; but there is a letter 
transmitting the check and vouchers in the case of Samuel McDonald. 

Question. Where did you find that letter ! 

Answer. This letter was found inclosed in this jacket — case of Samuel 
McDonald. 

Question. How did it come into possession of the Adjutant-Generars 
Office ? 

Answer. By transfer from the late Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands. It was receiv^ed by the late Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands July, 1870. There is no evidence on 
file that the money was ever again sent out by the chief disbursing offi- 
cer or ever paid to the claimant, Samuel McDonald. 

Question. Refer to the case of James Robbins, Company I, Tenth 
United States Colored Troops, settled by Treasury certificate 566325 for 
$100. What do the records of the Bureau show with reference to that ! 

Answer. The records of the Bureau show that that claim Avas paid 
on the 5th day of October, 1870 ; that on January 26, 1872, P. O. Leath- 
erberry, agent at Onancock, Va., returned to the Bureau check Xo. 
3640 for $87.25 on assistant treasurer at Baltimore, Md., to the order 
of James Bobbins, as directed. The case was placed before the Secre- 
tary of War, who directed General Howard to transfer the amount of 
money to us, and he did so, under protest, I believe. 

Question. Referring now to the case of Alfred Hammond, late private 
Company K, Ninety-seventh United States Colored Troops, settled by 
certificate 556085 for $127.86, what do the records of the Bureau show 
with reference to that case ? 

Answer. In looking over what was turned over to us as unfinished 
business of the late Bureau, we found a letter dated Mobile, Ala., Decem- 
ber 1, 1871, from C. A. Woodward, cashier, returning check No. 2659, on 
Freedmen's Savings and Trust Company, Washington, D. C, in favor of 
Alfred Hammond, whose receipted vouchers were forwarded in Decem- 
ber, 1870, and which he thinks were fraudulently signed. The records 
indicate that that claim was paid on the 10th of December, 1870. Gen- 
eral Howard's attention was called to the matter, and the check was 
delivered to him, and he procured the currency, of $111.30, and turned 
the same over to us ; the exact date I cannot give. 

Question. Refer now to the case of Louisa Briggs, widow of Austin 
Briggs, deceased, late private Company K, Eighty-fourth United States 
Colored Troops, settled by certificate"^ 510866, for $119.26. What do 
the records of the Bureau show in that case ? 



Answer. The records of the Bureau show that this case was paid 
August 24, 18G9. On October 22, 18G9, the Second Auditor requested 
the recovery of the amount paid, as per letter found on the files of the 
late Bureau, which I have in my hand, and that the vouchers were filed 
on August 24, 18G9. The check in this case was, I believe, still in the 
hands of the agent of the JUircau at New Orleans ; that the amount, 
upon call from the chief disbursing officer, was returned to him. 

Question. Keturned to whom f 

Answer. To the chief disbursing officer. On September 4, 1873, the 
Second Auditor addressed a communication to the Adjutant-General, 
asking whether the amount of that Treasury certificate was in the hands 
of the War Department. He was informed, September 10, 1873, that it 
was not. The matter was placed before the Secretary of War, and 
General Howard was directed to turn the amount over, which he did. 
The facts were reported to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and 
under his orders, January 10, 1874, we deposited the auiount to the 
credit of the Treasurer of the United States. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Question. That is. General Howard paid it himself! 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Dyer, counsel for the accused : 

If there is proof of the confusion of records, we understaud what the 
proof goes to. But if the proof from these confused and incorrect re- 
cords is to be taken as the truth to establish the fact that there is money 
in the hands of General Howard, we object to it now ; that is, we will 
not consent to be bound by records which the judge-advocate on the 
one hand is trying to prove are incorrect, and by that very incorrect 
record have responsibility fastened upon us — a money responsibility. If 
it goes to the confusion of records we have no objection to that. 

The Judge-Advocate. I desire to say to the court that I have been 
introducing testimony by this witness on the same '^jacket'" cases 
which have heretofore been introduced in the testimony, either by 
General Balloch or Mr. Harmon, or by Mr. Sims; General Balloch has 
touched on all of them, and Mr. Harmon or Mr. Sims subsequently on 
the same. The object of my presenting this testimony is to show that 
there is a confusion in the records turned over by the Bureau — such a 
confusion as prevents the War Department from conducting the busi- 
ness of the Bureau, as turned over, in certain cases. I, of course, can- 
not run through every case of confusion. I have taken a few that I 
have come across in the course of my investigation, some of them, as the 
court will have noticed, in which the matter has been discovered since the 
act organizing this court, but all illustrating the niatter that I refer to, 
viz, the confusion of records. Wliether or not those will show money 
returned to General Howard which has not been accounted for I can- 
not say. I am confining myself to show that in certain cases, as illus- 
trating the mode of keeping the records, there is confusion and inability 
on the part of the War Department to settle those accounts. It strikes 
me that it is very pertinent to this inquiry, because in referring to those 
allegations in Exhibit B that matter is touched upon considerably — the 
confused state of the records; in fact, my own impression is that this 
whole investigation results from that very circumstance, and such being 
the case, I desire to illustrate, not more fully than I have already done 
in the way of bringing in new matter, but to the extent of the cases I 
have previously brought in — I say I desire to illustrate this question of 
the confusion of records. 



363 

By a Member of the Court : 

But the cousequeiice.s of the facts, as they are brought out, may go 
farther thau that. 

By Mr. Dyer, counsel for the accused : 
I think, may it please the court, that there ought not to be auy mis- 
understandiug about this. At certain stages of the inquiry the judge- 
advocate introduced certain cases, and in every instance I inquired under 
what head those cases came ; and my recollection is distinct that in every 
instance those cases were announced to be included either in the 174 
cases, or else in cases found in the letter-books to have been paid irreg- 
ularly by check to the person himself, or by check sent to a bank, or some- 
thingof that sort. I hav-e no recollection of a single case beingintroduced, 
except under one or the other of those heads, so that it is not — uncon- 
sciously, perhaps — dealing quite fairly with us in trying these cases as hav- 
ing been ])ut in proof to the court, andas developing anew subject-matter 
of complaint against the accused. Theonly point about the matter is this : 
It makes delay. Weare satisfied thattheaccused can either explain every 
one of these cases or can justify himself with regard to it. But the court 
can see, if they are produced now as new cases to us, it devolves upon 
us a great labor to make the necessary examination. There appear to 
be a great many books. We are informed that in this Bureau there are 
now a great many books and recor<ls, and this labor is devolved upon 
the accused at this stage of the inquiry to go and search that whole mat- 
ter, and see how he cau justify himself If the court think that it ought 
to be done, we have no objection ; but it might require a little delay on 
our part. We therefore formally object to this testimony, because the 
judge-advocate does not confine himself to the subject he has in hand in 
the confusion of records, but in fact and by indirection brings in new 
matter, and that against General Howard. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

If the court please, I am not bringing in any new cases beyond those 
which have been touched upon in the evidence of General Balloch and 
Messrs. Harmon or Sims. They are the same "jacket" cases. I have 
to take certain cases in order to illustrate the manner of keeping the 
accounts of the Bureau on the subject of confusion of records. I cannot 
be governed by the gentleman's desire that I shall only pick out those 
cases which are very weak and which do not involve any culpability 
upon anybody. I have picked out these which I have found, not by a 
very diligent examination, but which have come to me naturally. I 
desire to complete the examination of this witness on the remaining 
" jacket " cases as illustrating their mode of keeping accounts and keep- 
ing records. If there is any accountabilit}^ attached to General Howard 
from the records, showing that funds have come to him which the records 
do not show as having gone out again, I have nothing to do with that, 
I cannot help it, but I want to take such cases as may undergo action or 
have undergone action in the Attorney-General's Oftice since the Bureau 
was discontinued, in order to illustrate the tact of the confusion of 
records — their previous mode of keeping accounts aiul the difliculties 
which are involved in now settling those accounts. There was a large 
number of accounts, the court will remember, which were turned over 
by the late Bureau which have not been settled. 

Mr. Dyer, (counsel for the accused.) I hold this, may it please the 
court : that the Government here is bound to exercise precisely the same 
good faith in a trial that a party would be compelled to exercise, and 



364 

the Government has no right to introduce certain testimony here upon 
the dechiration that it is for one purpose, and tiien weeks after, near the 
close of the investigation, to assume that it is for another i^urpose, of 
which we had no notice. Our o))jection, in aiklition to that which I 
have made, is, that the proceeding upon the part of the judge-advo- 
cate — I do not say intentionally because I do not believe it — has not 
been fair to us. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advo- 
cate announced, as the decision of the court, that the objection was not 
sustained.] 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Referring to the case of Alexander Dunn, late private 
Company B, Forty-fourth Regiment United States Colored Troops, 
settled by certificate 450010, for the amount of $327.20, what case is 
that ? 

Answer. It is a case that was called up by Capt. John B. Van de Wiele, 
of the Tenth Cavalry. The investigation had disclosed the fact that the 
money to pay that claim was in the hands of Mrs. A. T. Spilman, at 
Lowell, Ky. The claim was marked on the records as having been paid 
September 8, 1868. After correspondence with Mrs. Spilman, she turned 
over the amount of the claim to ris. We subsequently paid the amount 
of the claim. 

Question. On what date did she turn over the money ? 

Answer. We have taken the money up on our ^ooks as received 
November 20, 1872. 

Question. Referring now to the case of Henry Davis, late private Com- 
pany G, Fifteenth United States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 
429493, for $300 ; and the case of James Ponder, late Company F, Fifteenth 
United States Colored Troops, settled on certificate 494920, for $300 ; 
and the case of Mike Oliver, late private Company G, Thirteenth Regi- 
ment United States Colored Troops, settled on certificate 528752, for 
$210.80, what do you know about those ? 

Answer. These cases were not called up by any claimant. The jackets 
bear in lead-pencil a statement as follows : " Check received back Octo- 
ber 2, 1871." This remark led to an investigation, and it was ascer- 
tained that the check was received back in one of the cases. I cannot 
fix which case it was, but I think it was the case of Mike Oliver or 
James Ponder. In these two cases we called for that money from General 
Howartl, and General Balloch came to the office to look into the records 
in relation to them, and in his examination he said that there was another 
case precisely similar, that of Davis, and he said " I will turn over the 
amount of the three cases to you," and he did so. This case, the case ot 
Mike Oliver, is paid September 2, 1871. The case of Ponder is paid 
September 20, 1871, and the case of Henry Davis is paid May 15, 1871. 

Question. When was General Balloch's attention called to those cases, 
and when did he turn over the money to you ? 

Answer. We called the attention of General Howard to two of the 
cases, I believe. 

Question. About what time! 

Answer. The money was taken up on our books as received January 
15, 1873. 

Question. Referring to the case of Morris Sells, brother of William 
Harris, deceased, late private of Company B, Seventeenth United 



365 

• 

States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 5G2725 for 803.71, Avhat 
do you know about that case"? 

Answer. The records of the late Bureau indicate tbat it was paid 
June 16, 1870. I have here a record of the agent at ISTashville, Tenu. 
It appears from those records that June 13, 1870, vouchers in the case 
were received ; that on June 13, 1870, signed vouchers were returned to 
the chief disbursing officer, and that on June 20, 1870, check No. 3167, 
for $55.71, was received to pay the claim. 

By a Member of the Court : 

Question. Who by ! 

Answer. By the agent of the Bureau at Nashville, Tenn., J. B. Coons. 
The following remark in red ink appears opposite : "Claimant having 
died prior to delivery of check, same was returned to chief disbursing 
officer July 5, 1870, by the request of chief disbursing officer." There 
is another remark, " Received July 11, 1870, check number 3167, for 
f 55.71, payable to the order of J. B. Coons, to be delivered to the 
widow of Morris Sells." There is a further remark, "No widow or other 
heir can be found to be living ; check was returned to chief disbursing 
officer July 19, 1870, at his request, receipt on file." Again in the case 
of Charles Collins, Company A, Fourteenth Regiment, United States 
Colored Troops, settled by certificate 457259 for $180 bounty. My 
recollection in that case is that the records show that the money was 
received, back by the chief disbursing officer, with a report from Coons 
that the party could not be found. It is shown to have been paid 
August 21, 1868 ; that Coons subsequently reported to the chief dis- 
bursing officer that he had found Collins ; that he was in the peni- 
tentiary, and that the chief disbursing officer sent him another check 
for the amount of the money which was shown by the records to have 
been paid to Collins; that is my recollection of the case. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. What do you know on the subject of an alleged confusion 
of records in the Bureau? What difficulties have been experienced 
with reference to conducting the affiiirs of the Bureau, since it has been 
turned over to the Adjutant General's Office? 

Answer. The cases to which I have just referred are cases illustrating, 
some of the difficulties that we had in the payments of these claims. 
We receive an inquiry in regard to a case, and our first resource is to 
the bounty-register, which is supposed to be a full and complete history 
of the whole case. We find the case marked upon the bounty-register 
as a settled or unpaid case. Further investigation would disclose the 
fact that it was not a settled Or unpaid case, and therefore we were 
obliged to drop this bounty-register as our guide, and to rely upon other 
records outside of the office, that is the records of the Second Auditor's 
Office, and in every case the records of the Second Auditor's Office are 
examined before we take action on these cases. 

Question. What sort of a record was kept of claims sent, to whom 
sent, &cJi 

Answer. There is a list of vouchers sent out contained in a record- 
book, which gives the date when sent, the name, company, and regiment 
of the soldier, the date when the vouchers were received back, and the 
place of residence of the soldier, as furnished by the Second Auditor of 
the Treasury. Those records— in order to ascertain definitely where the 
money went to, we are obliged to know the names of the agents stationed 
at these particular points, or the name of the agent that would pay a 



366 

claimant resi(liiig*at any particular point in the South ; and then by ref- 
erence to the letter-books we would be enabled to hud the exact agent 
that the money was sent to, or the vouch(4i"s were sent to; we are then 
obliged to refer to his records to obtain certain information as to their 
final disposition of the claims. The records of the agent should in every 
case give a correct history of their case ; that is, it should show the date 
when the money went into the hands of the claimants, which is one of 
the main points with us — to fix that date. 

Question. When do the records show that a monthly report of receipts 
and disbursements was first made ? 

A. 1 cannot fix the date exactly, but 1 think it was some time about 
June or July, 1871 ; that was a very good record, and a good check. 

By the Court : 
Question. Check on whom ? 
Answer. Check on the disbursing agent. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Do you know uj) to how late a period the letters were in- 
dexed at the time of the discontinuance of the Bureau in 1872 f 

Answer. I can speak as to the chief disbursing officer's record. 
Prior to the 1st of January, 1871, there were no records of letters re- 
ceived kept, and the only record of letters sent was that contained in 
the press copy-books. On the 1st of January, 1871, the chief disburs- 
ing ofhcer commenced a regular set of " letters-received" and "letters- 
sent books" under the instructions of the War Department. Those rec- 
ords appear to be very good records from that time up to March, 1872. 
In March, 1872, they cease to enter any letters received in the books. 
At the time of the transfer we had in the neighborhood of eleven or 
twelve hundred communications that had not been briefed nor entered 
in those books. That labor fell upon us, and we gradually completed it. 
A few letters sent were in the press copy-books; they have since been 
copied into the main record-books. 

Question. How many certificates of unpaid bounty-claims were turned 
over to the Adjutant-General's Oifice, at the discontinuance of the 
Bureau in July, 1872 ? 

Answer. Do you mean nnpaid claims, or certificates that had not 
been converted by the Pay Department! 

Question. First, unj)aid claims, and secondly, certificates that had not 
been converted. 

Answer. I think that there must have been in the neighborhood of 
between four and five thousand un]>aid claims turned over to us. We 
had certificates issued by the Second Auditor that had not been paid by 
the Pay Department to the amount of $150,000 or $100,000. They were 
a class of claims that were, 1 believe, known in the late Bureau as un- 
adjusted certificates; that is, the attorney's fee-bills had not been re- 
ceived in the cases, nor had fees on them been paid. 

Question. But all cases where the attorney's fees had been adjusted, 
or in which the claimants had not received their pay, how many of them 
did you obtaiu from the late Bureau ? 

Answer. I said before that I think it is between four and five thou- 
sand somewhere. 

Question. Since the transfer of the Bureau to the War Department in 
July. 1872, do you know how many claims have been paid approxi- 
mately? 

Answer. No, sir ; I could not tell you. 



367 

Qaestion. Do you know how many claims were paid in the tirst year 
after the transfer, approximately ? 

Answer. I cannot say, sir ; it I conki refer to oar report, I could tell 
exactly. 

By the Judge Advocate. Eefer to the report and answer that ques- 
tion to-morrow morning'. Do you know of any erroneous payments hav- 
ing been made since the transfer of the Bureau in 1872 ? If so, how 
many ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; Major McMillan made one erroneous payment, 
and Major Lamotte, at Nashville, Tenn,, has made an erroneous pay- 
ment. He writes that he has. In the case of the payment made by 
Major McMillan, bowever, we got the man; and he was tried and sen- 
tenced to two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary at Albany. 

Question. Did the matter go to the Second Auditor for settlement ? 

Answer. The voucher upon which the erroneous payment was made 
went into Major McMillan's accounts for the month of October, 1871. 
After the trial of the party who received that money was completed. 
Major McMillan paid, from his own private funds, the amount paid out 
erroneously, and paid the rightful claimant. We then submitted a 
full statement of the case to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, asking 
him for relief in the matter. 

Question. Have you had any decision on that? 

Answer. We did, sir. We received the decision a few days after we 
made the ai)plication. 

Question. Have you that decision? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. State its purport. 

Answer. It is a letter, dated Treasury Department, Second Audit- 
or's Office, Washington, January 6, 1873, and is as follows : 

Treasury Department, Secoxd Auditor's Office, 

Wasliinyton, January 6, 1873. 

Sir : I am iu receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo iu the case of Perry J. 
Brown, late of the Seventh Regiment United States Colored Troops, in which you say : 
" The payment referred to having been made upon satisfactory identification, in estab- 
lishing which, due care and diligence were exercised, and having since re-imbursed 
the Government from my private funds in this sum erroneously paid, and paid also to 
the rightful claimant the amount due him, I would respectfully request that a new 
settlement for the amount (iiJil^.lO) be issued iu my favor iu order to my re-imburse- 
ment." 

In reply, I have to say, that there is no authority under which such re-imbursement 
could be made by this Office. I find, however, that the accounting officers have recog- 
nized the right of the War Department to authorize relief iu such cases ; and when 
the express sanction of the Secretary of War has been given iu writing, a credit for 
the erroneous payment has been allowed to the disbursing officer. In case of Pay- 
master Lyttle by Secretary Poinsett, in August, 1838 ; Secretary Bell, August 3, 1841 ; 
Secretary Stanton, October 25, 1866, and Secretary Schofield, June 12, 1868. 

I would suggest, then, that you present your case to the Secretary of War, or await 
the final settlement of your accounts, when this and other items, perhaps, may be prop- 
erly covered by a relief resolution of Congress. 
Very respectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, Auditor. 

Maj. Jas. McMillan, 

AdjutanUGeneraVs Office, War Deimrtment. 

The date is January 0, 1873 ; it should be January 0, 1871. 
Question. Are you familiar with the signature — do you know who 
has signed that ? 

Answer. It is signed in person by E. B. French, Second Auditor. 
Question. What was submitted on that application ? 



368 

Answer. Wo submitted a statement of the case accompanied by a 
certified extract (Vom tlie records of tlie sai)reme court of the District 
of Columbia, in tlie case of the United States against Georjje E. Adams, 
showing that on October 3, 1S7.'», the defendant was indicted for forgery ; 
arraigned and ])lead not guilty ; that a verdict of guilty was rendered 
and he sentenced to be imprisoned two years. 

By the Court : 

Question. But was Captain McMillan allowed for the money ? 

Answer, He was not. The Auditor declined to allow him for the 
money, and the money staiuls now as so much money out of his own 
pocket. 

On motion, the court thenj at 3.15 o'clock p. m., adjourne<l until 11 
o'clock a. m., to-morrow. 



THIKTY-FIEST DAY. 

CoiTRT OF Inquiry Rooms, No. 1810 F Street, 

Washinfffon, J). T.,- April 22, 1874—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

T). Col. George W. Gett\, Third Artillery, U. S. A.; 

0. Col. J. J. Beynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, tl. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Edgar Ketclium, 
esq., and George W. n)yer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

John S. Moody, the witness before the court yesterday, pronounced 
his testimony of yesterday to be correct as recorded. 

The president of the court then said : 

I have received the following communication, Avhich I will read for the 
inibrmation of the court: 

Executive Mansion, 
Washington, D. C, April 22, 1874. 
Oknerai, : AVluMi the court of iiKiniry providod by joint resolution of Congress of 
D?th of February last, and convened by Special Order No. i55 from the ^Var Department* 
J Avhicli court you are president, report their opinion to me, I will be pleased to have 
k r fully the facts on which the opinion is rested. 
Very truly yours, 

U. S. GRANT. 
General \Villiam T. Shkkmax, 

United States Army, 



369 

The witness, John S. Moody, then resumed the stand, and said : 
I desire to correct my testimony in reiiard to Austin Brig-.QS. I said 
that the matter was placed before the Secretary of War, and General 
Howard was directed to turn over tlie amount, which he did. I desire 
to correct my testimony so that it will read that General Howard was 
called u])ou to turn over the amount; that Major McMillan received the 
same from Balloch September 15, 1873. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Refer to the report and answer my question of yesterday. 
Do you know how many claims were paid in the llrst year after the 
transfer of the Bureau to the War Department in July, 1872 1 

Answer. Two thousand two hundred and seventy-one claims were 
paid during the fiscal year ending- June 30, 1873, and 335 during July 
and August, 1873, making a total of 2,007 ; the amount in the hands 
of the local disbursing otticers aggregated $559,073,32, representing 
3,277 settled claims that have been adjusted at the chief disbursing 
office in this city for the payment of the claimants, and sent to the, local 
officers for that purpose. The payment of these claims involves no 
labor further than that of identifying the claimants when they shall 
present themselves. 

Question. Did you state how much money had been paid out on those 
claims "i 

Answer. I am reading from the report; there may be an error in 
that ; we disbursed in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, $424,228.28 ; 
in July and Angnst Ave disbursed $00,840.43. 

Question. J)o you know how much has been disbursed in payment of 
these claims, bounty claims, since the close of that fiscal year up to the 
present time, approximately ? 

Answer. I will say that the clerk who has immediate charge of that 
matter is not in the city to-day, but I have referred to his books, and, 
including the disbursements for the fiscal year 1873 up to the 31st of 
January, 1874, we had disbursed upward of $700,000. 

By the President : 

Question. Embracing these other items? 

Answer. Yes, sir; in the months of March — February and March — 
our general account of receipts and disbursements has not been posted, 
but I judge that the disbursements during those months will amount 
in the neighborhood of $150,000— March, 1874. 

Cross-examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. How long have you been in the Adjutant-General's Office ? 

Answer. I first entered the Adjntant-Geuerars Office in the month of 
November, 1808. 

Question. Have you been there constantly since ? 

Answer. I have been employed in the office since that time constantly. 

Qnestion. What was your business immediately before going into that 
office ? 

Answer. I was the chief clerk of the chief mustering and disbursing 
officer of the State of Ohio. When that office was closed I was trans- 
ferred from Columbus, Ohio, with the records, and went into the Adju- 
tant-General's Office. 
24 HC 



370 

Question. I suppose yon can say, then, that you have been famih'ar 
with accounts since you were a man ? 

Answer. I have had more or less to do with accounts since the 1st of 
July, 18GG. 

Question. What was the nature of these accounts that were trans- 
ferred with yourself to the Adjutant-General's Office ? 

Answer. Accounts f 

Question. Yes ; or papers ! 

Answer, They were all the records and papers pertaining to the 
offices of the acting assistant provost-marshal -general, the chief mus- 
tering and disbursing officer, the superintendent of recruiting service 
of the States ot Ohio and West Virginia, and of the A^arious mustering 
and disbursing officers in those States ; the records of Camp Chase, part 
of them, and the records of Camp Cleveland, Ohio, the records of Todd 
Barracks, and the records of Camp Dennison. I believe that is all — 
and all the provost-marshals of these various States, I will add. 

Question. After you were transferred, did you. have any work to do 
on those records'? 

Answer. After my transfer, I was placed in what was known as the 
enrolhnent branch of the Adjutant-General's Office, and had immedi- 
ate charge of the records that I brought with me from Columbus, Ohio. 

Question. What work, if any, was there to be done upon those rec- 
ords after the transfer ? 

Answer. The principal work was the examination of those records to 
obtain certain information necessary to conduct the business of the 
office upon cases that came before it. 

Question. Did you take those records and arrange them ; put them 
in order ? 

Answer. I remained in that office from November, 1868, until the 1st 
of February, 1870. While I was in that office the work was constantly 
going on of the arrangement of those records. 

Question. Were you in charge of that work? 

Answer. I was placed in charge of that work about the middle of 
July, 1860. 

Question. Following, after that, did you have anything to do with 
the records of the Provost-Marshal-Geueral ? 

Answer. These were the records of the Provost-Marshal-General. 

Question. All of them I 

Answer. Yes, sir ; they were all brought in to that branch of the 
office. They were more or less connected with the duties of the officers 
under the Provost- Marshal-General's department j all of the records 
which I have referred to. 

Question. Then for a considerable time you had the charge of the 
records of the Provost-Marshal General's Office? 

Answer. The records of the offices from the States, not of the Pro- 
A'ost- Marshal General's records here — his proper records. 

Question. Not of the home office, you mean? 

Answer. Not of the home office. * 

Question. But of all others ? 

Answer. Of all others. 

Question. And you put all those records in order ? 

Answer. They were not all put in order while I was there; the work 
is still going on, I believe, at the present time. 

Question. But while you were upon that branchy did you work at 
I)uttiug them in order? 



Answer. Personally, myself, I did not. I supervised the work of hav- 
ing them arrnnged. 

Question. You say those records are not yet in order. How long a 
time will it take to complete them, in your judgment? 

Answer. I do not mean to convey the idea that they are not in order. 
They are in order, but they are now preparing them, folding them, and 
making them up in convenient packages of equal size, so as to take up 
the least possible space. They have been in order sufticient to enable 
any information that was contained in the records to be found, since 
they first came in there. 

Question. How did their order compare with the order and appoint- 
ment of the records of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Answer. I can only speak in relation to the records of the State of 
Ohio and the State of West Virginia, because the records of the other 
States, with the exception of the State of Missouri, had all been re- 
ceived before I was transferred here. The records of the State of Ohio 
were in good condition for reference, and the records of the State of 
West Virginia — I had in fact been brought up with them, and I can 
state that they were in good order also. As to the records of Missouri, 
when we received them they were not in good order. 

Question. And is that as full as you can answer the question, ]Mr. 
Moody ! 

Answer. I think it is. 

Question. Do you remember saying, about the time of the transfer of 
the records of the Freedmen's Bureau, that you did not care what kind 
of shape they came in, because yon had straightened out the records 
€f the Provost-Marshal-GeneraFs Office, and these records could not be 
worse than those. Do you recollect making a statement of the kind ? 

Answer. Kot as you have stated it. 

Question. Please give your recollection of it. 
^ Answer. I recollect telling Mr. Cook, whom 1 saw at the Bureau, after 
he had informed me that the records, which he called archive-records, 
were in a terrible condition, that 1 did not care very much about that ; 
that we would very soon straighten them out after we got hold of them. 

Question. Do you recollect whether Major Brown was present at that 
time! 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. You are quite confident that you made no reference or com- 
imrison then with the records of the Provost-Marshal-General's Office ? 

Answer. I might have said — I believe 1 did say — that I had straight- 
ened out the records of the Provost-Marshal-General's Bureau. 

Question. Well, Mr. Moody, suppose you complete the whole state- 
ment again, as far a8 you can recollect it. 

Answer. My recollection is that I told Mr. Cook, in reply to informa- 
tion which he had volunteered or given to nie, that the records known 
as the archive-records were in a terrible condition, that I did not care 
very much about that ; that we would soon straighten them out, as we 
had the records of the Provost-Marshal-General's Office. 

Question. Now, as a fact, witii your capacity and experience, were 
you not the very man to straighten them out ? 

Answer. I believe I could straighten the records out — all that was 
there. 

Question. Haven't you been able so far to straighten them out "? 

Answ^er. We have arranged the paper-records of certain of the States, 
and are now arranging the book-records. We commence with the States 



372 

alpliabf'ticallr, with the books, and have arranged them — I believe com- 
pleted the anaugemeut for the State of Louisiana. 

Question. Hav;\e you any doubt of your ability to straighten them out 
in a reasonable time? 

Answer. I have no doubt of my ability to fix what each record is, 
and then to arrange it with reference to — well, I mean to say that I 
have no doubt as to mj- ability to fix whatever book is in that ofiice, 
and arrange them then and catalogue them ; and that catalogue would 
enable any person to refer to such books as are there. 

Question. Have you any doubt of your ability to complete these 
records so as to make them intelligible within a reasonable time f 

Answer. I do not really understand what is meant by completing them. 

Question. Complete them so as to make them intelligible. You know 
best what it is. I do not know much about it. 

Answer. Do you mean to supply what is missing from the records ? 

Question. If that is necessary. 

Answer. I cannot supply anything that is missing; and as to making 
the records intelligible, I wou't swear whether that can be done or not. 

Question. Have you been able so far to get the requisite information 
in all matters of inquiry"? 

Answer. !N"o, sir. 

Question. But part of the record, I understand, has not been arranged 
yet. 

Answer. Part of it is in very much the same condition as it was when 
it was received from the Bureau. 

Question. I v>'ould like, if j^on can, that you would give the court some 
idea of the bulk of these records. 

Answer. The records — book-records — of officers received from the 
States are now contained in seventeen book-cases. 

(Question. I do not care about those details. 

The President. I think he is answering the question properly. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) I do not know the size of the 
book-cases. 

The Witness. Those seventeen book-cases are composed of four sec- 
tions each, and each section is five feet and some inches long, and is di- 
vided into twelve separate compartments. The records are crowded 
into those cases as closely as we can possibly put them. 

By the Court : 
Question. About how high ; you say five feet long? 
Answer. The height is about two feet, I think. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. That is a i^ortion of the records ; now, the remainder. 

Answer. I cannot state i^ositively as to the bulk of the paper-records. 
I am about to make an estimate for cases to put them in. We have 
shelving in the fourth story of the building we occupy, and the records 
are simply laid on the shelves. I cannot well give you any idea of the 
number of those packages of papers. 

Question. Well, you can state whether there are five or ten or twenty, 
or thirty or forty wagon -loads ; estimate it in that wav, including every- 
thing ? 

Answer. What sized wagon ? 

Question. I mean the Army wagon. 

Answer. I should judge those papers might be put in a dozen wag- 
ons. 

Question. Eecords and all ? 



373 

Answer. No, sir ; not records and all. 

Question. I ask how many wagon-loads — Army-wagon loads — to draw 
the whole afiair ? 

Answer, If it is a matter you place much importance on, I can tell 
you the exact number of w'agou-loads it took to bring those records 
from the Freedmeu's Bureau to our office ; but 1 should be obliged to 
refer to our voucher of what we paid to Knox & Co. for moving them. 

Question. Well, only your recollection about it. 

Answer. I have no recollection ; it is a matter I never charged my 
mind with. 

Question. At a certain time which you have named, I think the fall 
of 1872, after the i)residential election, you took full charge and direc- 
tion of these records and the business connected with them. 

Answer. In the fall of 1873 I took full charge ; in the fall of 1872, 
after the presidential election, I only had charge of the division of the 
office known as the chief disbursing office. 

Question. The year after you had full charge ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was Mr. Harrison with you then ! 

Answer. Mr. Harrison came into the office, I think, in March, 1873, 
from the Second Auditor's Office. 

Question. Did he come from Mr. Sims's room 1 

Answer, He came from Mr, Sims's room. 

Question. Did you interest yourself to get him over there ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. Then, as I understand you, one of the first things you did 
after you took charge of this disbursing division was to make a state- 
ment, some sort of a statement of the account as between Captain 
McMillan and General Howard, or his disbursing officer. 

Answer. I prepared certain lists, which were intended to represent 
all of the unsettled claims borne on the registers as such. 

Question. And upon that statement, as made by you, there was a bal- 
ance due from the disbursing officer, or General Howard, of $3,754.69 ? 

Answer. An apparent balance, yes, sir. 

Question. Was General Howard, or his disbursing officer, notified or 
directed to account for that balance "? 

Answer. I won't be positive whether he was or not. The matter was 
placed before the Secretary of War for his information. 

Question. As a matter of fact, did not General Howard or his disburs- 
ing officer directly after that turn over to Captain McMillan ? 

Answer. General Howard or his disbursing officer did turn over to 
Captain ]\IcMillau the amount found to be due by the Second Auditor 
of the Treasury. 

Question. How did that amount ditfer from the amount that you found 
to be due? 

Answer. It differed somewhat, because the Auditor's statement was 
much more correct than ours. 

Question. Do you know the precise amount which General Howard, 
or his disbursing officer, did turn over to answer to your call for 
$3,754.09 ? 

Answer. I can only tell you the exact amount by reference to our 
books. 

Question. It was a smaller amount, was it not? 

Answer. I believe it was a smaller amount. 

Question. Who made up this statement for you ? 

Answer. I had three clerks at work upon it : a gentleman by the name 



374 

of L. J. Bryan : a gentleman by the name of Thomas H. Evans, and a 
gentleman by the name of Gole ; I cannot think of his first name. 

Qnestion. If I nnderstood yon, after yon had made this statement and 
arrived at this resnlt, tlie Second Anditor's figures differed quite largely 
from yours, and that therefore yon added to yonr list the account for 
attorney's fees '? 

Answer. We made no additions to the list at all. We loaned the list 
to the Auditor, or to his clerks, who were engaged in the settlement of 
the accounts of the disbursing ofiicers. They made these additions, and 
I believe those amounts went into the sum that was transferred by those 
officers to Major McMillan. 

Qnestion. If I understand you, yon claimed that certain payments 
■were incorrect, and ought not to be allowed ; payments to heirs, of cer- 
tain bounties. Did I understand you correctly about that ? 

Answer. I have no recollection of saying so. I believe I said that 
there were certain amounts allowed by the accounting officers of the 
Treasury upon a settlement, issued by them, which in certain events 
went back to the Treasury of the United States. If I remember, that 
was the substance of what I said. 

Question. But at all events you did not present in the account such 
items as that ? 

Answer. I did not, sir. 

(i>uestion. How did the matter of the 174 cases come first to your at- 
tention ! 

Answer. The matter came first to my attention upon my return from 
leave of absence in November, 1872. 

Question. Was your attention called to the matter by Mr. Sims! 

Answer. In relation to these 174 cases f 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Not at all, sir. 

Question. Did you confer with him about these cases ? 

Answer. With Mr. Sims f 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Or since ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Has Mr. Harrison, by your direction, done so? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. He may have conferred with Mr, 
Sims recently in relation to what action he wished to take in regard to 
a communication from the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, asking for a re-opening of these accounts. 

Question. What was the communication you had with Mr. Sims in 
regard to that ? 

Answ^er. A simple inquiry, asking what action he was going to take 
on that letter. 

Question. Did you personally request him to restate the account of 
General Howard ? 

Answer. I cannot remember that I did. I may have told him that I 
thought he should restate it. 

Question. Do von remember whether you ever urged it upon him to 
do it? 

Answer. Not particularly. 

Question. Or requested Mr. Harrison to urge it upon him to do it ? 

Answer. Not that I remember. 

Question. After you had found what appeared to be an irregularity 



375 

in tlie 174 cases, what called your attention to the other matters that 
are presented in the letter of the Secretary of War ? 

Answer. Will you please refer to any particular matter? 

Question. There are seven other matters specifically set out in his 
letter to Congress besides these 174 cases. I refer to the matters there 
other than the 174 cases. 

Answer. Let me see a copy of the letter of the Secretary of War. 
[Letter shown witness.] My attention was first called to the matter 
under the heading one, claimed by colored claimants, &c., by letters 
that were received at the office from these colored claimants, denying 
the receipt of their mouej^ 

Question. What page is that? 

Answer. Second page, Ex. B. The defalcation of Saint Clair Maude- 
ville was first called to my attention by a letter from Benjamin Olivia, 
in relation to which I testified a lew days ago; and the defalcation of 
O. C. French was first called to onr attention, or to my attention, by a 
statement from Major Brown to the effect that he was a defaulter for 
six thousand and some odd dollars. That was at the time he was trans- 
ferring his funtls to Major McMillan. The same as to the defalcation 
of Runkle. As to the fifth matter, my first knowledge of that came 
through General Vincent. I believe, as to the sixth, the same as to the 
fifth, that I received the information through General Vincent. As to 
the irregular fund, my attention was first called to that by the receipt 
of a letter from some party in North Carolina applying to the office for 
his bounty, and we had no record of any claim upon the registers or 
other records of the office in favor of the man. Upon calling upon Mr. 
Tliompson, a clerk who had been employed in the Bureau, and after- 
ward retained in our office, for information in regard to this matter, he 
came to me and referred to this act of March 2, 1807. Out of that, I 
believe, a letter was addressed to General Howard early in January, 
1873, in relation to this matter. It subsequently came to our notice by 
a certificate of deposit transmitted to us by the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury for information to enable the Treasury Department to properly 
place the money in the Treasury of the United States. The misappli- 
cation, or subject eight, came to our notice last summer. 

Question. Did it come itself? 

Answer. No, sir; we went after it. I believe that is all. 

Question. In these various matters, did you communicate the" infor- 
mation you had received to Major Vincent? 

Answer. Tliat is the custom of the office, that any information of that 
character would be communicated to him. 

Question, Would it be through Captain McMillan, or independent of 
him ? 

Answer. I think, as a general thing, it would be independent of Cap- 
tain McMillan. 

Question. After you were put in charge of this branch of the Adju- 
tant-General's Office, was it your business to write the letters in connec- 
tion with it ? 

Answer. I write but very few letters in connection with it. Occa- 
sionally I write a letter, but the majority of the letters that are written 
I simply give instructions to write a letter to such and such an effect. 
There are others of the letters written by General Vincent himself. 
♦Some few of the letters are written by Major McMillan. Other clerks in 
the office, in matters relating to their own particular duties, they write 
their own letters. 

Question. You have testified to certain letters which were written by 



376 

yon, whicli arc signed by officers. Tarn to page 3 of Ex. B. Did yon 
write that letter? 

Answer. The letter marked A ? 

Question. The letter marked A ; yes. 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. Was it Avritten in your office? 

Answer. My impression is that that letter was written by General 
Vincent. 

■Question. Turn, if you please, to page 8 of the same exhibit, a report 
under letter B. Did you write that report ? 

Answer. That letter dated August 4, 1873 ? 

Question. Yes. It seems to be a letter in the form of a report; or a 
report in the form of a letter. 

Answer. No, sir ; I did not write that letter. 

Question. Any part of it ? 

Answer. My impression is that no part of that letter was written by 
me ; that is, as a letter itself. There may have been parts of this writ- 
ing in my reports made in regard to these matters, which were adopted 
by General Vincent himself in writing the letter himself. 

Question. How much of the letter does it embrace! 

Answer. 1 cannot tell you, sir. 

Question. All these parts that have figures in connection with them ? 

Answer. No, sir; I don't think that it embraced all those parts. 

Question. Could Major Vincent have got that information from any 
lierson except yourself ? 

Answer. In fact, I do not believe, when I come to think of it, that 
any p;nt of this letter, as it stands here, was written by me. The in- 
formation u])on which these statements are based in all probability was 
furnished ; certain of it was furnished. 

Question. There is another letter on page 11, under letter C, dated 
September 23, 1873; did you i)rei)are that letter! 

Answer. The original of that letter was prepared by myself; after- 
ward certain amendments and corrections were made to it by General 
Vincent. 

Question. Turn to page 32, if you please, of this Exhibit B, under the 
letter G, September 21, 1872. Did you write that letter I 

Answer. 1 did not, sir. That letter was written by Mr. Thompson, by 
my direction. 

Question. Refer to the letter on page 34, under the letter K. Did 
you write that letter, or was it written under your direction ! 

Answer. It was not written by me or under my direction. 

Question. And the following letter under the heading of letter L ? 

Answer. It was not written by nu^- or by my direction. 

Question. On page 37, under the heading of letter S. I ask in regard 
to that letter ; was that letter written by you or under your direction ! 

Answer. It was not written by me or under my direction. 

Question. On page 30, under the heading of letter W. Was that 
letter written by you or by your direction ! 

Answer. My impression is that I wrote that letter. 

(Question. Are you familiar with this book of exhibits ; have yon 
look(Hl over it so as to become familiar with it ? 

Answer. This Executive Document No. 10, H. E.? 

Question. Yes; also the supi)lementary letter accon^ipanying it. 

Answer. Yes, sir; I think I am tolerably familiar with those pajiers. 

Question. Are there any i)ortions of it, that is of your composition, 
that you have not been inquired about ! 



377 

Answer. I presume that there are other portions of it that I have 
•written that you have not inquired about. 

Question. For instance, the letter on page 52, under the heading of 
letter G, and extending from page 52 to 50? 

Answer. Did you ask me whether that letter was written by me? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It was not, sir. 

Question. In no part? 

Answer. I won't swear that there was no part of that letter written 
by me, because I may have put in some part of that letter. I could not 
swear to that fact. 

Question. As a matter of fact, did not you furnish the rough of that 
letter 1 

Answer, I do not think I did. 

Question. Are you certain about it"? 

Answer. I am certain I did not furnish the entire rough of that letter. 

Question. I did not ask you as to the entire rough ; the rougli of that 
letter "? 

Answer. No, sir; I do not think I did furnish the rough of that letter. 

Question. Are you certain of it ? 

Answer. I am tolerably certain of it. I may have furnished the in- 
formation upon which that letter was based ; as a letter there I did not 
furnish the rough of it. 

Question. Did you furnish the skeleton out of which this letter grew, 
or was afterward clothed? 

The Jui)C>E-x\DV()CATE. I would inquire of the counsel for the accused, 
through the court, the object of this cross-examination? 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) I am perfectly willing to state. 
We have had notice that General Vincent is to be here as a witness, 
and we would like to know what portion of this correspondence belongs 
to him, and what portion to this witness, so that we can ask each witness 
intelligently about his portion of it. 

The Judge- Advocate. I submit to the court that it has nothing to 
do with my direct examination. The letters show for themselves who 
they were written by ; at all events, they show who they were signed 
by, and it makes no dift'erence who whites the letter. 

The Accused (through his counsel.) I have not asked who the letters 
"were signed by, but the judge-advocate has put in some letters which 
appeared to be sigued by Major Vincent, and the witness testified that 
he wrote them himself — that is, that he prepared the rough. I wish to 
inquire witli reference to these other letters, and see whether the same 
was the case in regard to them. I know that the person who signs the 
letters is the responsible party. 

The Judge- Advocate. I object to the course of examination and 
leave it to the decision of the court. 

The Court. Do you insist upon the question ? 

The Accused (through his counsel.) No, sir; we have got through 
with that now. 

Question, Mr. Moody, at what time did the instructions issued from 
the War Department October 1, 1870, for keeping records and transact- 
ing clerical business, go into effect in the Adjutant-General's Office? 

Answer. It did not go into effect in the office that I have charge of or 
had charge of at all. I will state, for this reason, that at the time I had 
charge of what was known as the disbursing branch of the Adjutant- 
General's Oflice, it was not expected that the office would continue for 
any length of time. Eecord-books of letters received and letters sent 



378 

and iudorsement-bookshad all been prepared with a view to completing 
the business of that office, and to have carried those regulations into 
elfect, we would have had to throw away those books which we are still 
using to the present time, and in order to avoid expense it was made, I 
believe, an exception. 

Question. In regard to the 174 cases which are the subject of the first 
charge, do you know the fact that those cases came from the Second 
Auditor's Ofiice to the War Department for the purpose of having a 
prosecution against the i^ersons who had actually last paid the money 
to the wrong party °? 

Answer. That was a matter which it was not within the province of 
our office to decide. We placed it before the Attorney-General for such 
action as he saw fit to take in the premises. 

Question. That seems to be the result. I ask you about the fact ; 
■whether you know that fact ? 

Answer. I do not know that fact at all, sir. 

Question. Were you consulted as to what ought to be done in regard 
to those 174 cases ? 

Answer. I will say, in relation to that matter, that upon the receipt 
of the letter of April 10, 1873, that it went into a branch of the office 
known' as the colored-troops branch. The clerk in charge of that ofiice 
and General Vincent, after consultation, replied to that letter of the 
Second Auditor of the Treasury, and the first intimation I had that such 
action was taken in the matter, was the receipt of the original letter 
and the rough of the repl3' with a note to the effect that 1 was to take 
that up on the records of the freedmen's branch of the ofiice, which 1 
did. 

Question. In the letter in the exhibit on page 3, referring in the letter 
from papers A to F, inclusive, accompanying the letter — have you those 
papers ? 

Answer. The i^apers from A to F, inclusive? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I have not. 

Question. In your testimony yesterday, referring to the case of Har- 
riet A. Walker, Company 0, Fifth Company Colored Cavalry, at what 
time did you receive the complaint of non-payment in that case ? 

Answer. Without reference to the records I am not able to swear. 

Question. About what time was it — from memory 1 

Answer. I have not the slightest idea of the time we received that 
case. 

Question. Did you not testify about it yesterday? 

Answer. I do not believe I testified as to the date when the complaint 
was received at the Adjutant-GeneraPs Office. 

Question. Did you testify as to the date of the letter of complaint ? 

Answer. I cannot remember now whether 1 testified as to the letter 
of complaint, except in a general way, that it was a complaint received, 
and that the case of Pius D. Walker was on the list of 174 cases. 

Question. You say now that you testified to that before? 

Answer. That is my recollection of my testimony. 

Question. Was it a new complaint, or an old complaint ? 

Answer. I cannot tell you if it was a complaint that had been received 
in the office prior to the 4th day of August, 1873. 

Question. You say you are sure it was prior to October, 1873 ? 

Answer. Prior to August 4, 1873. 

Question. Did you notify General Howard of the fact that the check 
had been returned ? 



379 

Answer. We did not notify liim that the check bad been returned. I 
am positive as to that. 

Question, Did you notify General Balloch ? 

Answer. We did not. 

Question. Did you notify Major Brown ? 

Answer. We did not. 

Question. Did you see these gentlemen frequently ? 

Answer. I mean, when I say we did not, we did not notify them offi- 
cially. I saw the gentlemen frequently. 

Question. Did you tell them about it, either one of them ? 

Answer. I think I may have told Major Brown. 1 would not be 
positive. 

Question. Why did not yon give written notice in this case ? 

Answer. I could not give any reason why a written notice was not 
sent. 

Question. And you are not positive in regard to Major Brown, even"? 

Answer. If any information was given to Major Brown it was merely 
unofficially, in conversation between him and myself. 

Question. Have you a distinct recollection of any such conversation ? 

Answer. I have not. Why I say Major Brown, is simply because we 
have talked about the matter in the Bureau ourselves. 

Question. What is the practice with regard to communications which 
affect the responsibility of officers where complaints are made with re- 
gard to them or their action ? 

Answer. I do not believe that I have got the drift of your question. 

Question. Where complaints reach the Adjutant-General's Office which 
affect the responsibility of an officer, what is the i^ractice about giving 
that officer notice so that he may explain ? 

Answer. Outside of the matters connected with the Freedmen's Bureau, 
I have knowledge of but two or three cases where complaints have been 
received denying payment of claims paid by a disbursing officer. One 
case that I remember came to my notice while in Columbus, Ohio, where 
payment of a claim was denied by a party who rendered the service. 
The records of the disbursing office at Columbus, Ohio, showed that that 
claim had been paid to Maj. Henry Douglas. My recollection is that 
upon receipt of that complaint, the chief mustering officer forwarded 
that to the Adjutant-General of the Army. The case has since that time 
come before me, as the clerk in charge of the disbursing branch of the 
Adjutant-General's Office; I believe that it was lanally settled under.a 
decision of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury. It appeared from 
Major Douglas's report, that he had paid the account to claimant, by 
check to claimant or bearer. That check was drawn on one of the 
national banks at Columbus, Ohio, where Major Douglas kept his funds, 
and it had been cashed by that bank upon the day when the claim was 
shown to have been paid bj^ Major Douglas's record, and by the vouchers 
which he filed in the Treasury Department. 

Question. You do not answer the question ; perhaps you do not under- 
stand it. I asked you what was the usage or custom in the Adjutant- 
General's office with regard to notifying otficers as to complaints which 
might involve responsibility on their part ? 

Answer. I gave this as a case that had come under my observation, 
and endeavored to show the action that the Adjutant-General's Office 
had taken in tlie matter. They had submitted the case to the officer for 
a report, and upon tlie receipt of his report in that case, the final action 
of the office was had. 



380 

Question. Well, is that tlie usual practice of the Adjutant-Geueral's 
office '? 

Answer. That is one case ; in all the other cases that have come to 
my notice it has not been necessary to refer the case to the officer at all. 
The complaint is received that money has not been paid, and reference 
is at once made to the check issued iji settlement of that claim. Those 
checks for several years past are all drawn payable to the claimant or 
order, and the indorsement upon the check has always relieved the dis- 
bursing officer from responsibility. 

Question. Then it is not a practice in the Adjutant-General's Office? 

Answer. It is not in those cases where the claim has been paid by a 
check payable to the order of the claimant, because the matter can be 
determined without any reference to the officer in relation to it. 

Question. It appears in evidence that, in these other cases, notices 
were sent to General Howard or the disbursing officer in the other cases 
testified to. In these cases no such notice appears to have been giveu. 
I wish to know if there was any reason why that notice should not have 
been given ? 

Answer. The only reason that I can think of, why the notice was not 
given, is that, in all probability, the fact that this money had beeu re- 
turned to Major Brown was not known at the time that case went to 
the Department of Justice. That is the only reason I can give why the 
notice was not furnished and the case take the course of the other cases 
which are known as the $31,000 cases. 

Question. But the cases of Oliver, Pender, and Sells were not em- 
braced in the 174 cases, and General Howard was notified in that 
instance ? 

Answer. In those cases we had discovered the fact that the money 
had been received back, or in two cases. No complaint had been re- 
ceived from either of those parties at that time. We deemed it our duty 
to call for that money when there was sufficient evidence in the records 
of our office to show that it had not been paid, but had been received 
back, and was still in the hands of the disbursing officer of the Bureau. 

Question. As a matter of fact, then, did you feel it your duty to notify 
the officer when there was no complaint, and not notify him when 
there was a complaint f 

Answer. Not exactly in that way, sir. We had discovered here that 
there was money in the hands of the disbursing officer of the late Bureau 
to pay certain claims that had not been paid, and that money had not 
been transferred to us as directed by the Secretary of War ; and we, 
therefore, merely invited attention to it, and requested that the money 
be turned over to us. 

Question. Upon an inquiry of the judge-advocate, as to particular 
cases, not embraced in the 174 cases where checks had been returned 
to the Bureau, you produced this case as the first instance; did you 
not ? 

Answer. The case of Harriet A., widow of Pius D. Walker! 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. No, sir; I don't think I did. 

Question. What case did you produce then ? 

Answer. I am positive of the fact that that case was not produced at 
that time, but I cannot swear which one of these particular cases that 
we have here was the first case testified to in relation to the $31,000 
matter. 

The Judge- Advocate. I brought those cases here and submitted 
them myself. 



381 

The Accused, (througli his counsel.) The witness testified to that 
cue and Harriet Walker first, and I wish to see if he could recollect 
what he testified to a day or two ago. 

Question. Then you produce that case as an instance of a default 
upon the part of General Howard, while you now say he had no knowl- 
edge ? 

Answer. I produced that case, if my recollection serves me right, as 
an instance where the records of the Bureau themselves show that the 
claimant had not received his money, and that it was one of the cases 
that had been included in the list of 174 cases. 

Question. You say now that that was included in the 174 cases ? 

Answer. It was most assuredly included in the 174 cases ; the case of 
Harriet A. Walker, widow of Pius D. Walker. 

Question. Have you any record, or have you made examinations to 
see whether or not the claimant removed to another district and the 
money was returned to claimant in the new district ? 

Auswer. I have made no such examination with a view to ascertain 
any fact of that character. 

Question. Your examination, then, stopped with the information that 
that money had not been i^aid to that claimant in that district ? 

Answer. ISTo, sir — the examination was — we made an examination. 
We simply referred to the letter sent to see if the money drawn had 
been sent out to any other place, and we did not make an examination 
to ascertain whether the claimant had removed or not ; we did not do 
that. 

Question. Have you since made an examination into the list in the 
hands of Captain McMillan to see if that particular sum is credited in 
that list to the name of any other person than Harriet A. Walker ; did 
you look under the head of Pius Walker or Domiuick Walker ? 

Answer. We never received any list of cases that went to make up 
the amount of money transferred to us by Major Brown. We were 
guided in that matter by the records. Tlie register, as it now stands 
corrected, when a voucher is put in with the accounts of a disbursing 
officer, as in the case of this Harriet A., widow of Pius D. Walker, that 
voucher, to all intents and purposes, represents a disbursement of that 
sum of money. 

Question. Are you confident that when Major Brown turned over 
money to Captain McMillan he did not furnish him with a list of the 
persons not paid ? 

Answer. To make up the general sum that he transferred to us ? 

Question. No ; to make up any sum ? 

Answer. I know he did furnish us with a list to make up the sum of 
$37,000 and some odd cents ; he did farnish a list. 

Question. Have yon looked at that list ? 

Answer. I have looked at that list. 

Question. Do you find this name in that list ? 

Answer. It is not on that list. 

Question. Let me see the list, if you please. [List shown to counsel.] 
Have you additional lists or supplementary lists ? 

Answer. The additional list that we have consists simply of the 
jackets of the cases themselves. 

Question. This amount, as I understand you, was included in a sum 
of 85,000 forwarded by a Mr. Overly to Major Brown ? 

Answer. That is my opinion— that it was included in that. 85,000. 

Question. Do you know whether or not it was included in any sum of 
money turned over by Major Brown to Captain McMillan "? 



382 

Answer, I am positive it was uot incliuled in auy sum of money turned 
over by Major Brown to Captain McMillan. 

Question. In tbe next instance, that of Eliza Smith, which you said 
had been paid by Runkle by draft on " Fant, Washington & Co.," and 
that draft protested, had the money been sent by the Bureau to Runkle 
to pay that draft "? 

Answer. My impression is that the monej" was sent to H. H. Ray, the 
agent who succeeded Rankle. 

Question. The money had in eifect been sent from the Bureau ? 

Answer. From the Bureau to H. H. Ray 5 yes, sir. 

Question. Then this was simply a fraud on the part of Runkle himself 
in substituting his check f 

Answer. I have no opinion on that matter at all. 

Question. The next instances were those of three men, the amount 
due whom was reduced finally by the payment of $208.50 f 

Answer. Two men. 

Question. Two men. Has that sum of 8208.50 been turned over or 
made available in auy way to Captain McMillan I 

Answer. It has not. 

Question. Where is it now ! 

Answer. I haven't the slightest idea. 

Question. Were you present when that amount was tendered by Major 
Brown to Captain McMillan and refused by him '1 

Answer. I was present when Major Brown tendered to Captain Mc- 
Millan the check for the amount of those two claims, and also for the 
sum of $S7 and some cents due Robbins. He submitted that with a 
statement to the effect that he could not tell whether he was responsible 
for that money or not. I either told him or Major McMillan told him 
that he had better ascertain definitely in regard to that before he trans- 
ferred the money to us, and, upon our advice, he did not at that time 
transfer that money. 

Question. At what time was that f 

Answer. I cannot fix the date positively. It was, however, I think, 
before I went away in September of 1872. 

Question. In fact, was it not directly after the attention of the Refu- 
gees' Bureau had been called to the instances 1 

Answer. I do not think it was, sir. 

Question. When was their attention called to it? 

Answer. Called to the Robbins and this other matter 1 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. It seems that, on March 24, 1873. General Vincent submitted 
a report to the Adjutant-General of the Array in the case of John Am- 
bers and Peter House, late of the Fourteentli United States Colored 
Heavy Artillery. That was submitted by the Adjutant-General to the 
Secretary of War March 26, 1873, and referred the same day to General 
Howard by the War Department. 

Question. But this tender you speak of w«ns made the year before ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; it was made to us — must have been made a long 
time before this. I think the date of that tender can be fixed positively. 
My impression is that Major Brown had purchased a draft on New 
York for the amount of this money. 

(Question. Don't you know the fact that it was while General Howard 
was away in Arizona ? 

Answer. I do not know when General Howard was in Arizona, sir. 

Question. By repute don't you know it ? 



383 

Answer. I only know generally that he was in Arizona, but as to the 
dates I have no idea whatever. 

Question. Don't you know from a letter you have read to the court, 
that that money was at a certain time in the Treasury '? 
Answer. It was with the Treasurer of the United States. 
Question. Have some credits been given to General Howard lately 
in account by the accounting officer ? 

Answer. I have heard that there is a credit on the books of the Sec- 
ond Auditor's Office. I would explain how that credit arises. There 
was a case in which General Howard had been directed to deposit the 
amount held by him to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States. 
He had drawn a check against the Treasurer of the United States for 
that amount, and had transmitted that check to the Treasurer, I pre- 
sume, by mail. It seems that the check was lost and never reached the 
Treasurer of the United States, and consequently the money was not 
deposited to the credit of the Treasurer, as directed in the letter of the 
Second Auditor. This fact came to our notice, and we requested Gen- 
eral Howard to send us a duplicate check for the amount. He sent that 
duplicate check, and we presented it to the Treasurer, and deposited 
the amount to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States ; and 
Major McMillan of course charged himself with that amount as received 
from General Howard, and credited himself with the amount deposited 
to the credit of the United States ; as General Howard had never claimed 
credit for this amount, and had turned over the $209, I believe it was, 
and some odd cents; conseqently, when Major McMillan's reports or ac- 
counts went into the Second Auditor's Office he would receive a credit 
for the amount he turned over to us. 

Question. Was not that sum $208.50 instead of $209^ 
Answer. No, sir ; my impression is, it was $209.90. I would not be 
certain, but that is my impression. 

Question. Are you not in error about this being a request to him to 
pay this money over; instead of that, was it not an order! 
Answer. It may have been an order. 

Question. Was there another instance, Mr. Moody, where General 
Howard was ordered to make a payment and credit has since been 
given him because it was found that he was improperly ordered to 
make the i^ayment? 
Answer. Not to my knowledge. 
Question. The Arkansas matter. 

Answer. There were four claimants, I believe, in Arkansas. They 
were paid by Col. Henry Page, the agent at Little Rock. It seems that 
he paid this money to four impostors, but that he learned immediately 
afterward that such was the fact, and he pursued the parties, had them 
arrested, and recovered part of the money. No vouchers for this dis- 
bursement were ever put into the Treasury by General Howard, and, in 
my opinion, when he transferred to Major Brown the amount shown by 
his account-current to be due, he transferred this sum that had not been 
recovered from these four parties; and, consequently. Major Brown, in 
making the transfer to us, transferred the amount that had been lost 
by this payment. I looked into the matter to see whether General 
Howard had received back this money from Page. He had not ; and, as I 
view the matter now, Colonel Page ow«s General Howard that much 
money. 

Question. Does it not come to this, that General Howard was ordered 
to make the payment because the proper parties had not been paid, and 
he had taken credit at the Treasury and made the payment, and the 



384 

money stood to his credit because he had not taken credit for it at the 
Treasury 1 

The Judge-Advocate. I would ask the couuselj through the court, 
what this has to do with my direct examination 'i 

The Accused (through his counsel.) This is a little collateral, but 
goes to show the manner in which the business is done and has been 
done in this Bureau, and it throws some liglit upon the particular matters 
which are under inquiry here. We say that General Howard, as fast 
as he received notice, did what the War Department ordered him to do, 
and that he did it with so much i)romptness in one instance that money 
was paid over where no voucher had ever been hied by anybody. We 
cite that as an instance of his ready and cheerful obedience to orders. 

The President. 1 suppose the objection of the judge-advocate is 
on the technical ground that he does not want you to prove that fact by 
his witness. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) We will not ask any more ques- 
tions on that point. 

Question. With regard to other instauces named by you, you have 
corrected your testimony with regard to one Briggs, and it ap[>ears that 
another, Charles Collins, was paid. Do you know of any other instance 
that the proijer parties were not paid ? 

Answer. 1 would prefer that you would refer to the special case, and 
I will endeavor then to give a definite answer. 

Question. The first one is Hammond; that is all the minute I have of 
it. 

Answer. In Alfred Hammond's case I can swear positively he has not 
been paid his money. It is now in the possession of Captain McMillan. 

Question. The money is ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know of any instances among these men named 
where the money was not sent out for them from the Bureau at Wash- 
ington ? 

Answer. It was sent out in the case of Alfred Hammond by means of 
a check payable to his order ; that check was returned to the Bureau. 
W^e found the check with the records and turned it over to General 
Howard, who procured the currency on it and gave us the money. 
By the Court : 

Question. To whom did he give it? You say to us. 

Answer. To Major McMillan. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Now, is there an instance among these parties named where 
you know that the money for them was not sent from the Bureau at 
Washington 1 

Answer. I presume that in all the cases the money has been sent and 
vouchers are in the Treasury Department. I speak from the records 
alone. 

Question. From how many cases were those seventeen instauces pre- 
sented by 3'ou selected 1 

Answer. They were not selected at all unless they were called up in 
the actual course of the business of the office. The case that was called 
up would be hunted up, and, of course, in some instances it developed the 
fact that there were other cases in precisely the same situation that it 
was; they were then taken from the regular files and acted upon. 

Question. From how many cases were they taken ? 

Answer. Do you desire me to swear to the number of cases that are 
on file in the Freedmen's Bureau 1 



385 

Question. The number of cases which have been settled. 

Answer. 1 cannot do that. I have no knowledge of the fact of the 
number of cases that are borne upon those records as settled or unset- 
tled ; or what number of jackets or cases there are on file. 

Question. Do you know thafact that they reach several thousands'? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I know the}" must reach sever.^1 thousands. 1 
should judge they were in the neighborhood of over 50,000, may be as 
high as 75,000 cases on file. 

Question. In the three cases of Doris, Ponder, and Oliver you testi- 
fied that you went to Balloch for explanation as to two of them, and he 
gave explanation as to three. 

Answer. General Balloch came to the oflSce to examine the records in 
regard to the cases we had made calls for. I went with him at the time 
and went through the records with him ; I believe that the first intima- 
tion that he had that there were three cases was from his letters-received 
book returning the money in the three cases, and he then remarked, 
" Why, there is another case which is exactly the same way 5 I will have 
to turn over the money in all of them ;" and he did so. 

Question. In the winding up, or in the performance, rather, of the bus- 
iness of your office, have yon not found the late Commissioner ready to 
give explanations of all matters of which he was informed by your 
ofSce I 

Answer. I don't think that he has given satisfactory explanations. 

Question. Satisfactory to you 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you found him ready to give explanations'? 

Answer. He has given certain explanations. 

Question. Have you found him ready to account for money which you 
have thought he ought to be accountable for ? 

Answer. He or his disbursing officers have in every case of bounty 
turned over the money to us except in this case, or in these cases 
of House and Amber. 

Question. That is the $208.50 ? 

Answer. The $208.50. 

Question. In this matter of Harriet Walker, was the information or 
complaint you received made known by yoH to Major Vincent ? 

Answer. I cannot swear positively whether it was or not. It must 
have been made known to him by me in the course of business. 

Question. Have you taken a good deal of interest in this matter of 
accusation against General Howard ? 

Answer. I have taken that same interest that would naturally arise 
in the performance of my duties as a clerk in the War Department. 

Question. Have you taken a great deal of interest in the matter ? 

Answer. I do not know that I have taken any more interest than 
what I have stated, such as would natually arise in the course of my 
business. 

Question. Have you talked over the matter with other people ? 

Answer. I believe I have talked the matter over with other clerks in 
the oflice, and, probably, with parties outside of the office. 

Question. In the matter of page 15 of this exhibit, under the letter 
E, " receipts in the year ending June 30, 1872, that might properly be 
used to defray expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871," I asked you 
privately to look into that matter and give me the details of those 
amounts, and the sources from which you derived them. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The court then, on motion, at 3.05 o'clock p. m., adjourned until 
to-morrow, at 11 o'clock a. m. 
25 H 



386 



thirty-secOjS^d day. 

CouET OF Inquiry Eooms, No. 181G F Street, 

WashiH(jton, I). C, Airril 23, 1874. 
The court uiet pursuant to tbe foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

8. Brig. Gen. M. 0. INleigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Geo. W. Getty, Tlilrd Artillery, U. S. A. ; 
C. Col. J. J. Keynolds, Third Cayalry, U. S. A. ; 
7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Major Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Adyocate, U". S. A., judge-adyocate; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, the accused, and Edgar Ketchum, esq., aud 
George W. Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The miuutesof the proceedings of yesterday were read and approyed. 

The witness, John S, Moody, pronounced his testimony of yesterday 
to be correct as recorded. 

The witness, Mr. John S. Moody, said : 

I would like to correct my testimony as to this answer. I said, " He 
(General Howard) or his disbursing oflicers hayeiueyery case of bounty 
turned oyer the money to us except iu this case or these cases of House 
aud Amber.'' I desire to be understood that he or his disbursiug officers 
haye turned oyer to us bounty-money iu such cases as we haye brought 
to his attention only, except in the cases of House aud Amber. 

The cross-examination was then resumed by the Accused, (through 
his counsel,) as follows : 

Question. Will you please state, Mr. Moody, how you made up that 
statement E, aud the funds from which you deriyed the seyeral sums 
named in it ! 

Answer. Statement E must be considered in connection with statement 
C. It is a statement intended to show what, in the opinion of the War 
Department, of the receipts of the year ending June 30, 1872, might be 
j^roperly used to defray expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871. The 
first item, $2,084.98, is taken from the cash-book of the late Bureau: 
July 1, 1871, the balance on hand, 82,684.98. The second item, of 
$8,419.21, is the amount of balance of appropriations for the years pre- 
yious to July 1, as shown by the records of the War Department. The 
item $02.80 is an amount collected from the First National Bank of 
Galyeston, Tex., on account of check No. 241, in fayor of L. J. Warner, 
drawn March 18, 1808, on the above bank by Capt. H. C. Koberts, late 
disbursingofficer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freednien aud Abandoned 
Lands for Texas, but neyer called for by claimant. The next item, 
$889.08, is cash received from Bvt. Lieut. Col. J. j\L Brown, chief quar- 
termaster. The next item, 44 cents, is cash received from Lieut. C. S. 
Roberts, Seventeenth Infantry, to balance settlement. The next item, 
349.45, is made u]i from six different amounts, as follows : April 1, to 
cash received ou account of sale of office-furniture, $40.74; to cash re- 
ceived from J. H. Chapman, on account of auction-sales, $16.74 



387 

Question. All from sales'? 

Answer. All from anction-sales ; yes, sir. 

(j>nestion. That is enough. I do not care about the particular items; I 
want to know the sources. 

Answer. The item 81,039.18 is also the proceeds of auction sales. The 
item of 815 is cash received from Henry Page on account of deficiency 
in hay and oats on property-account, viz, 314 pounds of oats and 338 
pounds of hay. 

[Cross-examination ended.] 

Redirect examination. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question, flow do the records of the Freedraen's Bureau, as turned 
over, compare with the records of the Provost-MarsUal-Geuerafs Bu- 
reau ? 

Answer. As to condition ? 

Question. As to condition, as to completeness and ability to ascertain 
their contents '? 

Answer. The records of the Provost-MarshalGeneral's Bureau are in 
far better condition, or were in far better condition at the time they 
were received, than the records of the Freedmeu's Bureau. 

Question. State in what res[)ects. 

Answer. It is a very difficult thing" for me to say. The office of the 
Provost-Marshal-Geueral was subdivided much better, and each office 
was more distinct, it seems to me, than in the offices of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau. I mean by that, the provost-marshal of each district had his 
own separate records, and there was a general system of records; that 
is, one office would have records of about the same character as another 
office. In the Freednien's Bureau I have not been able to tind that sys- 
tem of records. Each officer ai)pears to have kept his records in his 
own way. That is one great difficulty under which we labor now in 
making examinations through those records. The records of the Pro- 
vost-Marshal-General's Bureau are more complete, and it is not much 
trouble to obtain any information from them. I do not know that I can 
answer the question any further. 

Question. With reference to the " irregular retained bounty-fund'* 
records of the Freedmen's Bureau, how complete are these i 

Answer. The only record we have of the irregular retained bounty is 
the record I see on that desk. [Pointing to irregular retained bounty- 
fund books.] There is an entry, however, in the ledger of the " Re- 
fugees and freedmeu's fund," on page 13, that shows the amounts of 
money received of retained bounties, and the disbursements up to 
August 31, 1806. This account is in ledger form ; there are references 
to the journal, giving in detail the transactions to that date, August 
31, 181)0. 

Question. What book did you say this was? 

Answer. The ledger of the "Refugees and freedmeu's fund" of the 
late Bureau. The last entry in this ledger account is August 31, 1866, 
" To cash, amount transferred, folio 203, $91 ,423.29. On tblio 203 ot the 
journal, " Refugees and freedmeu's fund," I tind this entry : " Retained 
bounties debtor to cash, 891,423.29; amount transferred, see memoran- 
dum cash-book." Those are the only records that we have in relation 
to the retained bounty matter. 

Question. When did you obtain these records? 

Answer. The cash-book and the journal were transferred to us at the 



o^8 

:::; t oi :ho j;renorai trausier : the r^\)rvl I s«?e on that table pomtiu^ to 
:: It ,:ular retained bounty funds i-e^ster' was received subsetjueutly. 1 
eanuot fix the exact date withom reference to the reconls themselves. 

Question. Anywhere near the time you got it ? 

Answer. It was alter the 1st of January, ld73. I cannot fix it more 
posirive'v tb:":t Tltti!". 

Q - J yestenlay in your cross examination to the motle 

of I ^ >iuess of your office, and to communicating infor- 

mation, why would it be iudei>endent of Captain McMillan for you to 
communicate with Major Vincent ? 

Answer. There is no s|^»ecial reason why I should communicate directly 
to Genend Vincent. Major McMillan's princij^il dflty in connection with 
the fi>?edmen's branch is the disbursement of money : all matters relat- 
' .; ■ • rly to the disbursement of money go to him: other matters 
, :o the ireueral business of the office go to General Vincent. 
^ :- c:::::es ?' ^ ' Millan sends it. sometimes I take it myself ; there 
is CO rule oi _ u in regard to it. 

Question. V\ _ca you say you wrv»te a lerter contained in Exhibit B. 
or that it w s written under your direction — these letters purporting to 
be sent by certain officers — what do you mean ? 

A^'S'^er. I meiin by that, that I may after consultation with General 
have wrtnen a letter, or 1 may have directed a clerk to write a 
d have given him the general purport of what I wanted to say ; 
the letter would then be written and would go to General Vincent for 
his final approval : he would make such changes and alterations as he 
saw fit. and send it back again, and a fair copy of the letter woidd be 
made for his signature. 

Question. On |xige 3 of Exhibit B. letter of the Secretary of "War to 
the Attorney-General, the Secretary says : •* B>rr'en'iH(i to the papers A to 
T." Sovr, do you know what these pajM^rs represented or referred to t 

Answer. 1 l»elieve that those papers were certain c-ases that had been 
prese-uteii to ns by the Second Auditor, under the arrangement of April 
10. iSTo. J.I think that the letter of May 19. 1S73 — not May 19, 

1S73. bu :-r of the Adjutant-General of the Army to the Secre- 

tary of \V„r v.oiild fix positively what the papers from A to F are. 

By the Cottbt : 
Question. Where do you find that letter ? 

Answer. It is not published. I believe, in these letters : I may have it 
with me : I will look and see. The piiper referred to as A is here in my 
hand: it is the letter of the Adjutant-General of the Army of May 27. 
1S73. 
Question. Bead ir. 
Answer. It is as follows : 

War Depaktsoest. AiauTAXT-GESSKAi."s Oftick. 

To the Aiurr axt-Gexkrai. of thk Akmt. 

ir'.r,/:». --V7. D.C.: 

Sis : I bare the ItoQor to repocf " ite tiansfer, HBder tihe «B*«if". 

! -r : TVir DepsTtment General Or . - : l-T^) of the boEmesB rfttMslrii^ 

- Fte«diD«n and Abandoaed Lands, a large Dambi»- of complaints have been 

:rom claimants that they have noc been paid their pay and boohty- money. 

ilu.^. u^l- ihe reeoids oi the Tieasory Department show settlement oi their claims. 

and vv.HKh«¥ hare been filed by the' disbursing officers oi the late Borean with the 

J — -^ >f the Treasoiry as evidence c^' payment. It is known that some rf 

^.tiol^t — many mote of them maypcoveto be. The Second Anditw 

laace pceeefited to his office shows condosively that certain daim- 

an»& kaTc U:«ii A^coausded odT .their mon^. and that in some instances the leeeipts and 



389 

voucliors npon wliicli thft money is claimed to liave been paid are false and fictitions, 
or profured npon frandnlent repreHentatif>ns. 

Of the complaints from claimants thus far received, the evidence snlimitted with one 
hundred and stjven of tliem was of a character that, in the opinion of this office, called 
for a thorough investigation, and they were, therefore, yjlaced before the Ht'cond Audi- 
tor, for such action as might to him seem xuoper. Apiil 10. 1873, the Anditor, by letter 
of that date, (herewith,) requested the views of the War Department as to the action 
to be had with reference to these cases, and, on April 14, 187.3, your recommendation to 
the Acting Secretary of War, that the War Department should undertake the prosecu- 
tion of the same, through the Dejiartnujiit of Justice, was approved — concert of action, 
however, to be maintained with tjie Treasury Department. In some of the cases pros- 
ecution is barred by the statute of limitations : in others, not ; thus making two classes. 
As to the iirst class, prosecution of tbe guilty parties not being practicable, how is pro- 
tection to the Government and claimants to be secured ? As to the second class, obsta- 
cles have presented themselves, as will ha seen by a reference to the report of the Judge- 
Advocate-General, as indorsed on papers in the case of alleged fraudulent payment of 
aiTears of pay, bounty, &c., of Harriet A., widow of Pius D. Walker, alias Pius Dim- 
mick, late Company C, Fiftii Utiited States Colored Cavalry, and to the recent reports, 
through the Department of Justice, in the case of O. C. French. I submit that both classes 
involve the immediate responsibilitjof the late Commissioner and the late chief disburs- 
ing officer. The vouchers, in all cases, are made to show the money as received by the 
claimants from the chief disbursing officer. In view of that respr)nsibility it may be 
a question as to how far, if at all, the United States should look to, or jiroceed 
against, inferior officers or sub-agents who, so far as the vouchers filed to cover pay- 
ments are concerned, nowhere appear in the transaction. The case of O. C. French, 
now before the Department of Justice, is an illustration. It is respectfully recom- 
mended that the entire matter be placed before the Department of Justice, for an opin- 
ion as to the course that should be pursued to protect the claimants and the interests 
of the United States. In order that the Department of Justice may have a prac- 
tical understanding of the general course as to yjayments by the late Frendmen's 
Bureau, the reports of Assistant Inspector-General A. Baird, U. S. A., of the investiga- 
tion iiad by him, and also the record of the court-martial in the case of Major Ben. P. 
Eunkle, U. S. A., retired, should be placed at its disposal. The ca.ses now before this 
office for action under the arrangement with the .Second Auditor are herewith. Two 
other cases submitted by the Auditor have been disposed of, as follows : That of 
Henry Kindred, late of Company B, One hundred and fourteenth United States Col- 
ored Troops, was submitted by yon on the 3d day of May, 1873, to the Secretary of War, 
with recommendation that the matter be place<l before the Department of Justice, 
with view to prosecution, and advice has been received from that Department that the 
papers were transmitted to the United States district attorney, Kentucky, to investi- 
gate and prosecute : that of Eliza, widow of William or Bill .Smith, late Company H. 
One hundred and fifteenth United States Colored Troops, the evidence being clear 
that the claimant had been defrauded, was submitted by you on the 6th day of May, 
1873, to the Acting Secretary of War, with recommendation that General O. O. How- 
ard, U. S. A., late Commissioner and disbursing officer, with whose accounts the fraud- 
ulent voucher had been filed, be directed to transfer the amount to the chief disburs- 
ing officer of the Freedmen's branch of this office. 
Very respectfullv, sir, vour obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. YIXCEXT. 

Assistant Ailjutant-Gtneral. 

Attached to that is a copy of General Orders Xo. oo, series of 1872 
of the War Department, noted in Exhibit B. 

Question. What does that order rehite to ? 

Answer. It is the order transferring- the Bureau. That letter was one. 
the letter of the Second Auditor of the Treasury another. 

The JudCtE-Adtocate. That is already in evidence. ^ 

The WiTXESS. The papers in the case of Harriet A., widow of Pius D. 
Walker, was another, and I presume the balance of the papers were 
similar cases. 

Question. The Baird and Eunkle records ? 

Answei". Xo, sir; those papers did not accompany this letter of the 
assistant adjutant-general to the Adjutant-General of the Army. We 
simply state there that they should be placed at the dispo.sal of the 
Department of Justice. There were six of tho.se papers. If the court 
desire to fix it positively I think I have a memoiandum made at the 



390 

time. When the opinion of the Attorney-General was returned to us I 
withdrew all these iuclosnres which had fione witli this letter of May 
27, 1873. and filed a nieuioranduni with the papers. 1 have not the 
memorandnm here, but I have it at the office, I believe. 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. What difficulty would there be in order to ascertain whether 
a claiujant had removed his residence or not? I instance the Pius D. 
Walker case. 

Answer, The only knowledge of such fact that could come into the 
possession of the Office would be a notification from the party, or some 
other person, that the removal had taken place. 

Question. Where, in the records of the Adjutant-General's Office, 
was the check in the Alfred Hammond case found, and how was it dis- 
covered ? 

Answer. The check was found with a letter transmitting it in a small 
case of what I received from the Bureau as unfinished business. 

Question. You have been asked as to whether General Howard was 
ready to make explanations. Can you give any instance within your 
knowledge bearing upon that inquiry ? 

Answer. I don't thiidc that the information in relation to this '' irreg- 
ular retained bounty" was furnished, as it now seems to me it should 
have been. 

Question. On what facts do you base that assertion ? 

Answer. Upon the fact that there seems to have been since this court 
commenced its investigation a great deal of information furnished that 
we should have had upon the call made for that information. It evidentl}" 
was in the possession of the officers of the late Bureau. 

Question. When was the call made for that iuformation, and when 
was it furnished 1 

Answer. The first letter from our Office to General Howard in relation 
to this "irregular retaiued-bounty fund" is dated January 7, 1873, on 
page 57, Exhibit B. There has been a great deal of correspondence in 
relation to the matter between the Office aiul General Howard, or be- 
tween the War Department and General Howard ; the only actual in for- 
maticn that we have ever received in regard to the matter isXhat record- 
book, [pointing to the "irregular retained bounty fund book;"| that 
book and the two books I referred to this morning, the journal and 
ledger. 

Question. When was that information furnished ? 

Answer. The book was evidentlyfurnished between the 7th of Janu- 
ary and the 2()th of February, 1873. As I said before, 1 cannot fix the 
exact date. The ledger and journal of the refugees and freedmen's fund 
was received at the time of the general transfer. As to the other letters 
I cannot fix the date without reference to the record when they were re- 
ceived. 

Question. When was the information furnished which you say has 
been furnished since the organization of this court? 

Answer. I have seen that information in the testimony only. 

Question. When did your Office first receive any information on the 
subject of the investment in bonds ? 

Answer. The first infornmtion that our Office had or the War Depart- 
ment relative to the investment of $334,875 in United States bonds was 
contained in that general statement dated December 29, 1873, from 
General Balloch, which I referred to on the occasion of my previous ex- 



391 

aniinatioD. Reference to the letter is made ou page 5. I do not believe 
that the original letter has ever been produced here. 

Question. What case do you refer to in your cross-examination, in 
which General Howard or his disbursing officer has turned over the 
bounty-money ? You corrected your testimony somewhat this morning. 

Answer. I refer to those cases that have come up in the transaction 
of the business of our office, where the examination of the records dis- 
closed the fact that the money had been returned to the Bureau from 
the disbursing agent and where we had made the call for that money. 

Question. Which of those sixteen cases, jacket cases, do you refer to 'i 

Answer, There are certain of these amounts that although not 
received direct from General Howard, they are so taken up on our 
books as received from him 5 the first case November 20. 

Question. Just state what case it is. 

Answer. The case of Alexander Dunn, ijrivate Company B, Forty- 
first United States Colored Troops. It was received through Mrs. A. 
T. Spilman. The next, the case of ^Nathan Burkhardt, minor child of 
Jackson J)ickey, and the mother of George Haley, 8837.83. That is an 
amount received from General Howard upon our books. My impression 
is, however, that it was paid over to us by Major Brown. He handed the 
money into the office, at any rate. 

By the Court : 

Question. But you entered it as received of General Howard? 

Answer. Yes, sir. The next amount $772.80, Henry Davis, James 
Ponder and Mike Oliver, the money was received from Balloch. The case 
of Miriam Hord, $363.10, the draft received back from the First National 
Bank of Indianapolis, Indiana. The next case was 8106.20, Louisa 
Briggs, widow of Austin Briggs, private Company K, Eighty-fourth 
United States Colored Troops; it was received through General Balloch. 
The next case $87.25, received direct from General Howard, the case of 
James Bobbins, Company I, Tenth United States Colored Troops. The 
next was the case of Alfred Hammond ; the draft was received back 
from Woodward, cashier of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Com- 
pany. 

By the Judge -Advocate : 

Question. Do those comprise the cases ? 

Answer. The case of Lundy, widow of Joseph Lundy, is not on that 
list ; that is the case of $209.66. 

Question. That is a case in which General Howard had taken up that 
amount as being responsible "for it, and it afterward turned out that it 
had been paid ! 

A. It was a case where General Howard drew his check on the Treas- 
ury of the United States in favor of the Treasurer of thxe United States, 
and forwarded it, 1 believe, by mail, with the request that the Treasurer 
of the United States shouUl issue to him a certificate of deposit, certify- 
ing that he had deposited to tiie credit of the United States $209.96. 
That check, it seems, was lost in the mail, and was never paid by the 
Treasurer, or never received by him. We called upon General Howard 
to turn that money over to us, he did so, and Captain McMillan receipted 
to him for the amount and charged himself with it on his accounts. I 
am informed that the Second Auditor of the Treasury has allowed Gen- 
eral Howard a credit for $209.96, for the reason that he had never 
claimed credit for it before, and turned the money over to us. 



392 

Be-cross exam ination. 

By the Accused, (tlirougb his counsel :) 

Question. Upon this confusion of records; who was the Provost- Mar- 
shal-General ? 

Answer. Col. James B. Fry. 

Question. Was he an adjutant-general or assistant adjutant-general 
before that time ? 

Answer. I believe he was an assistant adjutant-general. 

Question. Before he became Provost-Marshal-General f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And an assistant adjutant general since ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I believe so. 

Question. Familiar with the ways of the Adjutant-General's Office ? 

Answer. I cannot swear to that. 

Question. Tie should have been. 

Answer. He should have been. 

By the Court : 

Question. Did Mr. Cook give any reason why the records of the 
archive division of the Freedmen's Bureau were in a " terrible condi- 
tion ;'' if so, what reason % 

Answer. 1 don't know that he gave any reasons at the time for the 
confusion. 

Question. Then or afterward ? 

Answer. Then or since, that I am aware of, unless there is Jui explana- 
tion in a letter of his attached to this Exhibit B. I am not positive 
whether he gives an explanation there of the confusion of the records 
or not. 

Question. What number of the 174 colored claimants referred to in 
paragraph one, page 2, Exhibit B, if any, are included in the defalca- 
tion of Saint (31air Mandeville ; what in that of O. C. French ; what of 
B. P. Eunkle ? 

Answer. I believe there are ten in the Mandeville defalcation ; the 
defalcation of O. C. French covered certain cases, a list of which we 
had. If a case of complaint as to the non-receipt of the money came 
from any one of those claimants, we took no action on it other than to 
inform the parties who had written the letter of the condition of affairs, 
and that we would, as soon as we were in possession of funds to pay 
the claim, take the necessary steps to place the money in the claimant's 
hands. * • 

Question. What number was there ? 

Answer. I am going to explain that. None of the cases covered by 
the defalcation of French are in that 174. There are several cases, 
however, where French alleges he paid the claims that the parties claim 
they have not received the money and we have made complaint-cases 
of them. Those parties, however, are not borne on that list to cover the 
defalcation of French. There are none covered by the defalcation of 
French in those 174 cases, but there are other cases in which French 
was the sub-agent that appear in those 174 cases. 

Question. Can you state how many there were of those that were 
embraced in the 174 ? 

Answer. I could by reference to the papers. My impression is that 
there are five cases: at least we have received a report from the Depart- 
ment of Justice to the effect that judgment has been taken against 
French in five cases. We have no information whatever as to the cases 



393 

involved in the Ennkle defalcation ; only know that it is -$673.24, We 
have no information coveiing- that particular amount of $673.24. There 
are a great many cases on that list of 174 cases that were alleged to 
have been paid through Ennkle, but I cannot fix the $673.24, not know- 
ing' what cases that amount covers. 

Question. What is the amount covered by the ten Maudeville cases ? 

Answer. Upward of $2,000. 

Question. Kefer to page 8, Exhibit B, and say if the amount of those 
cases should not be part of the amount of $33,888.39, rather than the 
amount of $8,503.29 ? 

Answer. I think that the amount of the three cases borne on the 
Mandeville record as not paid Avonld form a part of the $8,503.29. The 
other seven cases, in my opinion, don't enter into the $8,503.29. 

Question. Belong to the other sum ? 

Answer. They belong- to the $33,888.39. 

Question. How does it happen that these three Mandeville cases are 
added up twice to swell che gross amount for which General Howard is 
alleged to be responsible, on page 10, Exhibit B ? 

Answer. I presume that the reason is that at the date of the letter of 
August 4, 1873, the records of Mandeville were not in our possession, 
or tbat we did not know the claims that went to make up that $8^503.29^ 

Question. In those cases (174) that remain, how many are there in 
which there is legal evidence that the money has not been jiaid to the 
rightful claimants "? 

Answer. I cannot answer that. 

Question. Of those 174 cases and the others you have mentioned, will 
you state in how many and what particular cases the claimants were paid 
by General Howard, or where the money was sent back to him and has 
not been accounted for ? 

Answer. There are seven cases on that list that the vouchers in the 
Treasury Department and the records of the Freedmeu's Bureau show 
to have been paid during the time General Howard was personally dis- 
bursing this money. The only case in which the records indicate that 
the money was returned from the sub-agent, that I have yet found, is the 
case of Harriet A. W^alker. 

Question. WidoAV of whom ? 

Answer. Pius I). W^alker. 

Question. Has that claim been paid the widow or administrator? 

Answer. She has not been paid, or the administrator. Permit me to 
correct that answer ; she has not been paid by us, nor can any evidence 
be found on the records of the Buretlu other than the voucher and record 
of tbe 27th January, 1872, that she was paid by any ofiicers of the 
Bureau. 

Question. Eeferring to the sum of $19,446.57, on page 8, Ex. Doc. 10, 
part 2, being amount of interest on United States bonds, can you state 
from the records at what dates the several payments of interest were 
received and the several amounts received? 

Answer. I would say that there is nothing upon the records of the 
late Freedmen's Bureau that I have been able to find touching- upon 
this transaction whatever. 

Question. Is it a correct statement when you record money as received 
from General Howard, when it was actually paid by General Balloch, 
Major Brown, or some one else ? 

Answer. In all these cases where we have received the money from 
General Howard, or from one of his disbursing ofiflcers, we have reported 
the fact to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, I believe, and our action 



394 

in the matter is governed entirely b^' the instructions received from the 
Second Auditor. If he instructs us to take the money up as received 
from General Howard, we do so ; if as received from General Balloch, we 
do so. In the matter of the $31,000 it was reported to him. In his 
instructions to us he separated the sum aiul directed it to be receipted 
for so nuich from General Howard and so much from General Balloch; 
and I believe in every instance of money received in that way since that 
time that a report has been made to him and that we have been guided 
by his instructions. There may have been one or two cases, however, 
where, acting upon his instructions or taking his instructions as a prece- 
dent, I have acted upon it without reporting the fact to him until it went 
in with our regular accounts. 

Question. The question was, is that a correct statement to record on 
your books — money received from General Howard — when you say you 
received it irom some one else ? 

Answer. 1 have never questioned the matter at all, or the instructions 
that have been received from the Auditor in relation to those matters, 
whether it was correct or not. 

Question. You state that, as you received money from General Bal- 
loch, Major Brown, and others, you recorded the money as received from 
General Howard. In whose name is the receipt given ? 

Answer. If the instructions say to receipt for this money to Geueral 
Howard, we receipt to him ; if the instructions say to General Balloch, 
we receipt to him. 

Question. Did you make the heading to Table B, page 14, Exhibit B ? 

xVnswer. I made the first heading that was made to that table ; it 
was afterward changed by General Vincent. 

Question. Is it the business of the officers of the Treasury Depart- 
ment or of the Adjutant-General's Office to prescribe how an account- 
current shall be stated ? 

Answer. My opinion is that it is the business of the Treasury De- 
partment. I believe it is customary to have a bhluk form prepared in 
the different Departments, and they are prepared with a view to facili- 
tate the business. The general for ui, however, I believe is one that has 
been adopted by custom, for a long time. 

Question. In making up the tabular statement of vouchers from Jan- 
uary to August, 1872, in evidence as Exhibit G^, did or did not each 
voucher contain a period of time embracing the services rendered, the 
amount paid, and the day when paid I 

Answer. I did not personally examine all of the vouchers, but judge 
from what I see before me. The work is that of a clerk in whom I had 
all confidence that he would prepare the statement in accordance with 
the facts shown by the vouchers. I think they did contain the date of 
payment, dates when services were rendered, and also show the date of 
actual payment. 

Question. And the amount paid ? 

Answer. And the amount paid*. 

Question. And what the services were that were rendered ? 

Answer. What the services were that were rendered. 

Question. If those vouchers had omitted the actual date of the check 
in payment, could you have made up those tables from which the infer- 
ence of " misapplication " is made ! 

Answer. Xot from the vouchers themselves. We might have obtained 
information from the letters-sent book, transmitting checks when the 
parties reside at a distance, or the checks were sent through the mail. 
In some cases, I believe, that is where I first discovered that the date 



395 

of payment as sliown by the casb-books was not tbe actual date. I refer 
now particularly to tbe voucbers in tbe niontb of July, for scbool- 
bouses, the first voucher for $3,000, 1 discovered the check dated April 
12, 1871, bad been sent in payment of that voucher, that it was borne 
upon the cash-books and records of the Bureau as having- been paid on 
the 25th of July. The vou(;her is in favor of H. M. Tupper ou the 
casb-books. Immediately followino- that voucher is another, in favor of 
H. JM. Tupper, for sixteen thousand and odd dollars. I know I looked 
a long- time for that one and 1 could never hnd that tbe check bad been 
sent oft, but when I examined the voucher I found that $10,500 had 
been paid to E. L. L. Taylor, and not to H. M. Tupper, and by reference 
to that I found tbe check for $10,500.88 bad been sent to Taylor, and 
not to Tupper, on the 19th of Aprib 

Question. Was tbe expression " vouchers covering- time subsequent 
to the actual date of payment, and therefore erroneous," in tbe letter of 
tbe Secretary of War, on page 3, near tbe top. Exhibit B, copied from 
any official papers received by you before that letter was sent to tbe 
Speaker of the House of Eepresentativesf 

Answer. I do not tbink I can answer that question. 

Question. Why ? 

Answer. I cannot remember of ever having seen the expression before 
this letter was written, not that I know of. I would not be positive in 
regard to that. I cannot remember now. 

Question. Is or not that expression manifestly erroneous ; if not erro- 
neous, what is meant thereby ? 

Answer. My opinion is that that statement is erroneous. 

Question. You understand it to be erroneous, then? 

Answer, The meaning I do not think could have been expressed in so 
brief a form ; the actual meaning. 

Question. That is the meaning you think be ought to bave conveyed'? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Wherein does the present system of identifying and paying- 
claimants for bounty due discharged soldiers differ from that adopted by 
General Howard when Commissioner? 

Answer. My only knowledge of the system adopted by General How- 
ard of course is what I bave learned from my acquaintance with bis 
records, and from general hearsay, &c. I can state, as to the system 
that is adopted now, that there are no payments macle or receipt taken 
for money unless tbe money is put right into tbe bands of the claimant, 
in current funds, at tbe time the receipt shows it. 

Question. Do you pretend to say that voucbers are dated now when 
the negro gets his money '? 

Answer. Tbe very day the claimant receives bi§ money is tbe day be 
signs tbe r^eipt. The witnesses to the signature are the witnesses to tbe 
payment of the money. All our disbursing officers receive this money 
in bulk, and we furnish them witb the lists of claims that they are to 
pay. These disbursing officers are charged upon the books of our office 
with tbe money, and receipt to Major McMdlau for it in bulk, and ren- 
der their accounts direct to the Treasury, or through our office to tbe 
Treasury Department. They are all accountable upon tbe records of 
the Treasury Department for tbe money Major McMillan transfers to 
them. Occasionally, we are obliged to use other means to make pay- 
ments. In cases where the claimants reside at points distant from any 
of our paying-points, we liave, under arrangement with the Postmaster- 
General, paid them their payments by means of money-orders. And 
again we have used, temporarily, officers of tbe Army that were in 



396 

places convenient to tlie residence oftbe parties, and paid through them 
under specinl instructions in each case; but in every instance the voucher 
that we receive, or onr disbursing- officers receive, indicates the tact 
that tlie payment of the money was made at the time the voucher was 
signed. 

Question. Where, and when, does the disbursing officer get the money; 
where, when, and how '? 

Answer. I will explain. The disbursing officer draws a check paya- 
ble to himself, or bearer, or order ; he presents that check to the officers 
of the independent treasury, or to the designated depositary, and receives 
the current funds; the current funds he pays over to the claimants. In 
cases of payments that I know of positively, iu Baltimore, w^e have reg- 
ular days when we go there to make payments; we can estimate very 
nearly about the amount we will probably disburse. Major McMillan 
will draw a check ranging from three up to as high as ten or eleven 
thousand dollars; we draw this money in bulk from the assistant treas- 
urer at Baltimore, w^e then take it up to our office and pay out the 
money to each individual claimant. 

Question. How as to identification? 

Answer. The identification consists of the affidavit of two or more 
parties who are certified to by a civil magistrate to be credible persons, 
that the parties presenting themselves for payuient are the identical 
persons they represent themselves to be. We then have in addition, in 
the case of every soldier, what we call a confidential list ; it is a list 
containing the full military history of that soldier from the time he went 
into the service until the time he left it. There are certain matters 
connected with the military history of almost every soldier that he alone 
is supposed to know. In a great many cases soldiers have been wMiund- 
ed, lost a finger, lost an eye, or there has been some peculiar mark about 
them at the time of their enlistment ; all these things are noted on the 
confidential lists, and the parties who appear before us are subjected to 
a close examination. The party will be questioned as to his military 
history, as to his knowledge of his officers, as to the other soldiers who 
were in his company, and regiment, and then he is examined as to his 
• description, his height, and with i)articular reference to any marks or 
scars that he had on him at the time of his enlistment or that he re- 
ceived wiiile in the service. I will say that in a great many cases we 
have been able to identify the negro positively by the description ; the 
loss of a finger, and I have often come down so close as to notice that 
their ears were pierced, that fiict having been entered upon the enlist- 
ment list. 

Question. Yet with all your precautions, your errors are about as 
great as General Howard's. Deducting defalcations, you have had two 
out of twenty-six hundred, and he forty or fifty out of fotty or fifty 
thousand ? 

Answer. We have had two errors that we are aware of. That is a 
matter of calculation. 

Question. You state that there was one erroneous payment made, by 
Major La Motte in Tennessee, since the transfer to the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's- Office. What action has been taken in your office iu that case"? 

Answer. Major La Motte re[)orted the fact of the erroneous payment 
shortly after it was made. We directed him to use every effort in his 
po-\ver to secure the arrest of the parties ; he had already reported that 
he had hope of seeming their arrest. We finally authorized him to 
employ a detective, and, a few weeks since, I caused a letter to be writ- 
ten to him asking him to make a report of his action in the matter. He 



397 

reported that be had secured the arrest of one of the witnesses who had 
beeu examined before a United States eomniissiouer and bound over 
to have the case presented to the grand jury. As to the other two par- 
ties implicated in thelraml,he reported that they were about two hundred 
miles up the Cumberland Kiver, but the dete(5tive had gone after them 
and he was in hopes of securing them in a few days. We reported the 
fact to the Second Auditor, that Major La Motte had made an errone- 
ous payment. Through an oversight, I may call it an oversight, in our 
office, we had let Major La Motte's vouchers go through, but we immedi- 
ately reported the fact of the erroneous payment as soon as we discov- 
ered it. 

Question. Did you say you wrote or we wrote? 

Answer. I caused the letter to be written. It was written by the 
Adjutant-General or assistant adjutant-general. 

Question. Has not the experience of the Freedmen's Bureau aided 
the Adjntant-Generars Office in the payment of these colored claimants f 

Answer. I have not the least doubt but that it has. 

Question. In preparing statements A to E inclusive, on pnges 13 to 
15, Exhibit B, did you examine the laws of Congress referring to the 
Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. No, sir; not with special reference to those statements. 

Question. In [)reparing these statements, did you consult the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Under what instructions and for what purpose did you pre- 
pare these statements I 

Answer. Upon the 7th of October, 1872, a report was made by Gen- 
eral Vincent in relation to the condition of affairs in the late Freed- 
men's Bureau; that report was replied to by General Howard denying 
generally the allegations made in the report of General Vincent. Gen- 
eral Howard replied to that report, addressing his communication to 
the chairman of the Military Committee of the House of Representa- 
tives on the 3d of February, 1873. It is to be found on page 42, Exhibit 
B. February 20, 1873, General Vincent, under reference from the Ad- 
jutant-General of the Army of the reply of General Howard, submitted 
an additional report in regard to the matter. 

Question. Where will we find that ? 

Answer. On page 52, Exhibit B. The fact was of course published 
in the newspapers. As I stated the other day, a man by the name of 
Shaw came to me and told me that he thought he could account for this 
confusion in the records, and help tix the responsibility. He then told 
me a long story in relation to the Committee on Appropriations, and the 
Hon. Mr. Lawrence and other members, and what action they had had, 
and said that he had been informed that of the money appropriated 
for the last year, 1872, for the Bureau, that General Howard had taken 
large sums of that money and applied it as he said to pay the salaries 
of teachers. After I heard his story- as he related it to me, 1 suggested 
to him that he go to General Vincent and tell his story, and went with 
him. He related the story to General Vincent. I told him to make it 
as brief as possible, and he did so, and the general informed him, 
" Well," says he, " you had better submit this statement in writing." Mr. 
Shaw replied that he would do so, and a short time after that he did 
submit the statement in writing. 

Question. Have you got that letter ? 

Answer. That letter is in the possession of General Vincent, I gave 
it to him this morning. Upon the strength of that letter, I was directed 



398 

to look into the matter and see whether there was any truth in the al- 
legatiou. I did so, and made tl)e examination from the cash-books of 
the hite Bureau. I found of the appropriation of 1872, that there had 
been 

By a Member of the Court. If that investigation led to the pre- 
paration of these statements, the question is answered. I do not care 
to go over that again. 

The Witness. I tlrst prepared this statement from the books, not state- 
ments, but a simple statement showing figures, to arrive, if possible, at 
the amount that was taken for the salaries of teachers. Well, I could 
not hud that any money had been taken for the salaries of teachers, but 
1 did find that there had been taken twenty-four or twenty-five thousand 
dollars, or twenty-eight thousand dollars, $28,424 and some c«^nts, for 
'' schools and asylums," and, as I stated a short time ago in my testimony, 
I had discovered that some of these vouchers had been paid long prior to 
the date they were drawn. I think that upon a report of that fact having 
been made it was decided to get those vouchers and prepare this state- 
ment in order to arrive at the exact facts in regard to it. 

Question. These statements, you mean ! 

Answer. These statements. That is a history of the transaction as 
far as we have gone. 

(Question. Do these statements then simply express or not your indi- 
vidual judguient of the matters contained in them '? 

Answer. 1 presume — it is my judgmeut-7that it has been adopted 
by the Office, and may be stated to be the views of the War Department. 

Question. Were any papers or school reports of Mr. Alvord, or waste 
paper or office debris brought from the late Bureau, burned or other- 
wise destroyed in transit, or after they were received at the War De- 
partment 1 

Answer. I am not aware of any records having been lost in transit. 
There were certain re])orts, I believe, the yearl}" reports of the Commis- 
sioner, quite a large pile of them, that were stored in the basement of the 
building occupied by the Freedmen's branch, !iow occupied by it. These 
pai)ers or reports, some time after the transfer had been completed, 
some person called for some of them. They reported to me that they 
were missing. Where they went to I have no knowledge, but I have 
always suspicioned that they were stolen and sold by one of the mes- 
sengers employed in our Office to some of these paper-dealers. They were 
simply those reports published by Congress. 

Question. Printed reports? 

Answer. The i)rinted reports published by Congress. Whether i\uy re- 
ports of General Alvord were among them 1 cannot say. There are 
quite a number of books still stored in th;it basement, and I think that 
some of those books are books that belong to the educational division — 
printed instructions how to build school-houses, «&c., or something to 
that effect. I presume that the office waste-paper was disposed of as 
usual in such cases. We have a branch in the office that we turn all 
that waste-paper over to, and it is all, after a sufficient quantity is ac- 
cumulated, I believe, either sold or destroyed, I don't know which; I be- 
lieve, however, it is sold. 

Question. About how many officers, clerks, messengers, &c., are now 
employed at the Freedmen's branch, Adjutant-General's Office? 

Answer. 1 think we have 21 or 22 clerks and messengers in the Office. 
There are 7 clerks emi)loyed by our disbursing officers, at a salary of 
'$100 a month, and two clerks employed at a salary of $50 a month, by 



399 

the local disbursiug officers. They are not included in the 21 or 22 
clerks at headquarters. 

Questiou. Are the officers now on duty appointed as disbursiug offi- 
cers tor the paynieut ot bounties to the colored claiuiauts; by whom, 
and about how many are so detailed ? 

Answer. Captain James McMillan, was, by orders of the Secretary 
of War, directed, in additiou to his other duties as disbursiug officer, to 
attend to the duties of disbursing officer that falls to the office at head- 
quarters in Washington. We have seven majors of the Regular Army de- 
tailed and stationed at various points; we have six lieuteuauts who, in 
additiou to their regular post duties, act as disbursing officers. Those, 
I believe, are all the officers detailed on duty. 

Question. How many persons and officers in all, therefore, are now 
occupied exclusively in the matter of payment of bounties jxnd the care 
of the records of the late Bureau ? 

Answer. You mean exclusively engaged on that duty ! 

Question. Who do uothiug else oflicially ? 

Answer. I would prefer to prepare a statement for the iuformation 
of the court, and I will have it exactly correct. 

Question. Can you answer more closely as to whom the money went 
in the case of Harriet Walker ? 

Answer. If I have testified that that money was returned to General 
Howard without qualifying it, or his disbursing officers, I probably 
might be mistaken. I meau by that, that the money did uot come back 
to General Howard personally, but it did come back to one of his dis- 
bursing officers. 

The Judge- Advocate. The witness has in his possession the record 
which I expected to introduce by Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent. 
With the permission of the court I will uow ask him to produce it. 

The President. You can do so. 

Question. What paper is that you hold in your hand ! 

Answer. A circular letter dated War Department, Bureau of Eefugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, Washington, March 19, 1872. 

Question. Read it for the iuformation of the court. 

Answer. 

Wau Department, 
Bureau op Refugees, Freedmen axd Abandoned Lands, 

WaslwKjton, March 19, 1872. 

CIRCULAR LETTER. 

On accoinit of want of funds, it is necessary to suspend, in great measure, the opera- 
tions of this Bureau. Tiie collection of claims cannot be continued. Incases settled, 
bounties will be paid as rapidly as possible ; but, by reason of the discharge of many 
agents and clerks, some delays will be unavoidable. 

Each case will receive attention in its turn. Letters of inquiry will not hasten action 
and cannot he ansicertd. 
By order of Brigadier-General 0. O. Howard, Commissioner : 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Question. Where did you find that circular letter ? 

Answer. 1 obtained that circular letter, I believe, from Mr. Thomp- 
son ; I sent for him to furnish me a copy of it a few days since, and he 
sent me that copy. The accused admitted the order to be a correct 
record. 

On motion, at 3 o'clock and 5 minutes p. m., the court adjourned until 
to-morrow morning, at 11 o'clock. 



400 



THIRTY-THIKD DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

Washington, D. C, Friday, April 24, 1874—11 a, m. 
The court met pursaaut to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General Williau T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, IT. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

.5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

C. Col. J. J. Revuolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Garduer, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the acpused, and Edgar Ketchum, 
esq., and George W. Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 
The witness, John S. Moody, pronounced liis testimony to be correct 
as recorded. 

The examination of John S. Moody was then resumed, as follows : 
By the Court : 

Question. Have you prepared the statement which you said you would 
furnish ? 

Answer. I have. There are fourteen officers, thirty clerks, and eleven 
messengers, in all fifty-live ; of these, twenty-one clerks are employed 
at the headquarters, Washington, and four messengers. 

Question. Can you tell the name of the clerk or messenger who has 
charge of the room where the reports of General Howard, Commissioner, 
were kept, which are said to have been stolen or lost; also, the name of 
the clerk or messenger who was permitted or allowed, as testified by 
you, to dispose of the office debris after the removal of records from the 
Howard University to the present office"? 

Answer. The room wliere the reports were stored is in the basement 
of the building, and I think that the clerk in charge at the time of the 
loss of the reports was Mr. Woodward ; lie had charge of what was 
known as the miscellaneous division of the office. As these reports 
were supposed to belong to that branch of the office, they went under 
him. 

Question. What are Woodward's initials ? 

Answer. E. A. Woodward. 

Question. The question speaks of two different persons. 

Answer. I would like to ask whether it is desired to know the name 
of the clerk or messenger who we suspicioned had sold these books, or 
the name of the clerk and messenger who now sell all the debris of the 
office, and did at that time? 

Question. The question asked for two names. You have given one. 
Now, according to your previous testimony there was another person in 
charge of the disposition of refuse i^aper, &c. We want the name of 
that party. 

Answer. There is a large building on New I'ork avenue that is in 



401 

charge of a gentleman by the name of Ellerbrook ; all the (Ichris of the 
oflflce is sent to him, and he under 

Question. The question has reference to the party who took charge 
of these papers at your office and took them to this person. 

Answer. These special reports were never sold by direction of any- 
body or by anj- person who had any authority. They were stolen from 
the office. 

Question. The question is, who was in charge ? 

Answer. I have answered, Mr. Woodward. 

Question. Who had charge of the debris of the office — who had au- 
thority to take it over to Mr. Ellerbrook ? 

Answer. He sends bags to the office, and his messengers take it off. 
It is taken by the messengers in our office, from our desks, daily, and 
deposited in a safe place in the building, where there would be no dan- 
ger from fire, and when there is a sufficient quantity of it accumulated, 
the messengers of Ellerbrook will come with bags, and pack it in those 
bags, and remove it to the office on New York avenue. I believe that 
he does that with all the offices of the Adjutant-General's Office. 

Question. The question has reference to the person who was respon- 
sible for this waste-paper and this debris of the office before it goes to 
Ellerbrook. Is it sent for daily f 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Somebody must be in charge of it? 

Answer. I presume I am responsible, in connection with Mr. Wood- 
ward. The responsibility of that building was divided between us two 
at that time, for the loss of those papers. 

Question. How long have you been engaged in the examination of the 
Bureau records and the accounts of General Boward "? 

Answer. Examined theni more or less ever since the 1st of July, 1872, 
daily, iu the transaction of the business of the office. 

Question. How many clerks have you had emjdoyed in this work, the 
accounts of General Howard ? 

Answer. May I ask whether you refer to a special examination of the 
accounts, or to the general work of the office f 

Question. Rather to the special examination of his accounts, 'his 
matters ? 

Answer. All these particular matters? 

Question. Xo, all the matters that have been mentioned in this exam- 
ination '? 

Answer. I cannot answer that question ; it is utterly impossible. The 
work — or I would say that as the matters came up, in the course of our 
business, that the necessary clerks to properly make an examination 
were put to work; I could not now say just how many clerks were actu- 
ally engaged in this work, and how many hours, days or weeks it took 
them to complete it. I can say in relation to this statement, Exhibit B, 
that the original statement was commenced about the 23d day of July, 
1873, and it was completed on or before the 20tli day of August, 1873. 
Our records show that on the 23d of July we wrote to the Third Auditor 
for the accounts. I wrote a letter on the 20th day of August to Gen- 
eral Vincent, who was at that time in Bethlehem, Pa., informing 
him that the examination had been completed. That is the reason why 
I fixed those dates positively, that it was between those times. The 
clerks, however, engaged upon the work during that time, were not 
engaged all the time; they only worked on this when their other duties 
and more important duties had been completed, and they had leisure. 

Examination ended. 
26 H 



402 

Andrew Cauldwell recalled. 
By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Referring to letter B 2, on page 8. part second of Exhibit B, 
under the fourth item, which speaks of certain securities on deposit 
amounting' to $279,375, bonds purchased by the late Commissioner, Gen- 
eral Howard, were any accounts ever rendered to the Third Auditor's 
Office with vouchers for tlie expenditure of such interest or increase as 
resulted from the purchase of those bonds? 

Answer. There was an account rendered by General Howard for a 
larger portion of interest. There was no account rendered by General 
BaTloch accounting for the part that he disbursed. 

Question. Have you that account-current with you ? 

Answer. I have a copy of an account-current rendered by George W. 
Balloch, brevet brigadier- general and chief disbursing-officer of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, which I under- 
stand was rendered by him to General Howard, in which he takes up 
the proceeds of the profits arising from the purchase and sale of $250,000 
of 5-20 bonds, March, 1871, and after disbursing a i>ortion of it — pro- 
bably I had better give the figures. 

Question. Yes, sir. 

Answer. The i)rotits arising from that transaction were $9,063.22; of 
that amount General Balloch appears to have disbursed, as per this 
account-current, $2,222.90 in October, about the 12th, I think — October 
12, or the 11th. The ILth, General Howard relieved General Balloch of 
his duties, and on that date General Balloch transferred to General 
Howard $0,840.32, being the balance remaining in his hands from the 
proceeds of this particular transaction, and General Howard, I may 
add, accounted for that balance. 

By the Court : 
Question. General Howard has accounted for it? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Compare this account-current you have just alluded to 
with page 18 of Exhibit B, and state whether or not it is a copy of it. 

Answer. [After comparing the two. J That appears to be a correct 
copy. 

Question. Where are the vouchers belonging to this account- current ? 

Answer. I do not know. 

Question. Were they ever rendered to the Treasury Department? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. How did General Howard take up this sum of $6,840.32 ; 
in what lund ? 

Answer. On the account-current of Refugees and Freedmen fund ; that 
is an irregular fund of the appropriation for the Bureau in October, 1871. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Do you put this account in as 
proving the account ? 

The Judge- AdvocATE. No, sir. 

The Witness. That is only a copy of the account-current and origi- 
nal. I never saw the original. 

Cross-examination. 
By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Question. This paper comes from the files of your office ? 



403 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I wish you would read the indorsements upon it. 

Answer. 

Tkeasuky Department, 

March 16, 1874. 
Respectfully referred to the TLiird Auditor of the Treasury for report as to whether 
General Balloch ever accounted to hiui for the interest collected on the within claim, 
($250,000 5-20 bonds,) and rendered proper vouchers for the items charged against said 
interest, as shown by the inclosed accouut-current. Also, whether, in his opinion, these 
items constitute legitimate disbursments, so as to make them allowable were they 
charged in General Balloch's regular disbursing-account. 

W. A. RICHARDSON, 

Sccretarij. 

Treasuhy Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

Ma)X'h-2l, IH74. 

Respectfully returned to the Secretary of the Treasury, with the infornuition that 
George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, did not render the within account as per copy to this office, accounting for the 
interest accruing from the purchase of |250,000 United States 5-20 bonds, nor does he 
appear to have taken credit for the payments noted thereon in any of his accounts on 
file in this office. This account-current appears to have been rendered by George W. 
Balloch to General Howard, when the latter relieved the former in October, 1871, and, as 
it is presumed, that the vouchers entered therein accompanied the account, although 
this office has no knowledge of the fact. 

General Howard, in his Freedmen's Bureau fund account-current for October, 1871, 
takes up the unexpended interest, |6,840.32, as cash from Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. 
Balloch. chief disbursing officer, for balance of interest, $250,000, invested in United 
States bonds, and taken up on this fund in accordance with public act No. 72, June 15, 
186(5. In subsequent months General Howard accounts for the intei-est as taken up by 
proper vouchers and by transfer of $4,856.88 to his bounty, pay, and prize-money ac- 
count for January, 1872, on iile in the office of the Second Auditor. In reply to the 
query whether in his [in my] opinion these items constitute legitimate disburse;jieuts, 
so as to make them allowable were they charged in General Balloch's regular disburs- 
iug-accounts, I am of opinion that they would be so considered if the vouchers were 
in proper form and a[)proved by General Howard, as Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, as ^ler section 2, act of June 15, 1866. 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

dtiditor. 

General Balloch, in a verbal conversation I had with him, stated to 
me, and %lso stated in the Secretary of the Treasury's oltice, that the 
vouchers were rendered with the account-current to General Howard. 
The Secretary of the Treasury has called upon General Balloch to ren- 
der the original of this account-current, to which I have been referring 
with vouchers. 

Question. As a fact, then, so nmch of the money as came actually into 
General Howard's hands in this account has been properly accounted 
for by him f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Upon what letter, if any, was the indorsement of the Sec^ 
retary of the Treasury upon that account made? 

Answer. This indorsement here? 

Question. The indorsement you just read. 

Answer. The indorsement was made upon a copy of the account-cur- 
rent, from which this copy was taken. 

Question. Was there any request upon the part of anybody for that 
reference '? 

Answer. Well, that 1 

Question. How does the Secretary of the Treasury happen to have 
heard 

Answer. He received a copy of it, I understand, from the Secretary 



404 

of War. I presume the question ^Yas asked whether those particular 
accounts ha(l been rendered to the Treasury, and it was referred to our 
office to answer. 

Question. You do not know anything- about the correspondence I 

Answer. I woukl state that this (!opy was referred to the Second Aud- 
itor also, and the same reply and substance given, that no account had 
been rendered to that office; upon which, the Secretary of the Treasury 
wrote a letter to the Secretary of War, informing- him of those facts. 
The Secretary, on the same day, called on General Balloch to account 
for It. 

Question. Do you know whether General Howard had been person- 
ally notified of the non-rendition of that portion of the account belonging 
to General Balloch ! 

Answer. To my knowledge, he never has been. 

Redirect examination. 

By the JuDaE-ADVOCATE : 

Question. Can you explain why General Howard has not been notified 
of the non-rendition of these vouchers ? 

Answer. By the Third Auditor's Office ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Yes, sir ; owing to the fact the Secretary's Office has notified — 
has called upon — General Balloch to account for them, the Secretary 
being our superior officer. 

By the Court : 

Question. What Secretary do you refer to? 

Answer. The Secretary of the Treasury. Had not the Secretary of 
the Treasury done so, the Third Auditor Avould have done so, of course. 

Question. Can you tell the dates of the receipt of the several sums 
that make up the interest account of $19,446.57, and the several 
amounts received? 

Answer. 1 would reply that the copy of the account-current is on file 
here. I would have to refer to that for the dates ; it is a part of the 
record already. . 

John M. Sims recalled. 

Examined by the Judge- Advocate : 

Qaestiou. Do you know whether, from the 1st of January, 1871, to 
March HI, 1871, inclusive, or from May 1, 1871, to July 31, 1871, inclu- 
sive, any accounts or vouchers were rendered to the Second Auditor of 
the Treasury by the late Commissioner, General Howard, or by either 
of his disbursing officers for expenses of the Bureau, or for schools and 
asylums 'I 

Answer. There were not. 

[No cross-examination.] 

James Sabine then appeared before the court, and, being duly sworn 
by the judge-advocate, in the presence of the accused, testified as 
follows : 

Examined by the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 
Answer. James Sabine ; clerk Freedmen's branch, Adjutant-General's 
Oflice ; No. 807 Eighth street. 



405 

Qnestiou. Keferrino- to part second, Exhibit B, the letter of the hon- 
orable Secretary of War, of date January 5, 1874, are certain tabular 
statements under the headino- of deposits or amount overstated by the 
disbursing olticer of the United States Treasury, Washington, D. C. ; 
will you state whether those figures on that page and on page 2, 
down to the middle of the page, have come underyour notice, and, if so, 
whether or not they are correct? 

Answer. Yes; I prepared the statement, and these figures are correct 
with the exception of a slight clerical error of 40 cents in one of the 
amounts. 

Question. Which amount "? 

Answer. Sei)tember, 1870, the amount of $42,115.83 should be 
$42,110.23. With that exception, the figures are correct. 

Question. From what data were those figures made up, and by whom 
were they prepared I 

Answer. Thev were made up from statements received from the ac- 
counting oftirers, l)eiiig copies of the accounts-current of General Bulloch 
of the disbursing ofricer, copies from the accounting ofhcers of the 
Treasury. 

Question. Who prepared those tabular statements? 

Answer. I did ; I prepared them. 

Question. The documents that you received from the accounting 
officers of the Treasury for the purpose of preparing the statements^ were 
how authenticated? 

Answer. They were official reports from the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Question. Under seal? 

Answer. Under seal; yes, sir. 

Qnestiou. And what did they contain ? 

Answer. They contained statements of all the balances on deposit for 
each month, in the Treasury at Washington, as rendered by the disburs- 
ing officers to the accounting officers of the Treasury for these months, 
between June, 1807, and Sei)tember, 1871, inclusive. 

Question. 1 see here in your possession a document ; was this one of 
the accounts from which you prepared the data ? 

Answer. It is 

Question. What does it state ? 

Answer. It states the balance of the bounty-fund. 

Question. Just read that. 

Answer. This is a statement of the moneys received and disbursed 
monthly by Brevet Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, with 
balance on hand at the end of each month, and where deposited. 

Question. What period in the tabular statement, part second. Exhibit 
B, did that cover — that statement furnished by the accounting officers of 
the Treasury ? 

Answer. It covers from June, 1807, lo September, 1871, inclusive. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) May it please the court, I do 
not think there is any necessity of spending much time on these accouiits; 
we have no doubt that these figures are substantially correct. 

The President, (to the judge-advocate.) Will that admission answer 
your purpose? 

The Judge-Advocate. Yes, sir; it will. I have a long tabular state- 
ment here prepared from these accounts which shows the matter in de- 
tail, and I would like to put it in evidence. 

The Accused (through his counsel.) To save time will the court allow 
me to say a word or two ? 



406 

Tlie President. Certainly. 

The Accused, (tbrougii bis counsel.) Here is a matter which the Sec- 
retary of War says covers erroneous statements and misrepresentations 
on the ])art of General Balloch, and ou page 2 says that an ex- 
amination similar to that under the foregoing has failed to show deficits 
in the immediate accounts of General How ard, and the accounts of Major 
Brown, the other disbursing officer. In addition to that, I think it must 
be within the knowledge of the judge-advocate that this matter was re- 
ferred to the Attorney-General by the Secretary of War, and he rei)orted 
that there was nothing in it ; that it was also relerred by the Secretary- 
of War to the Secretary of the Treasury, who in turn referred it to the 
Second Comi>troller and Third Auditor as a committee to investigate it, 
and they reported that there was nothing in it. l^ow, as that is all 
matter of record, as I understand, it seems to me that it is a waste of 
time to go further into this matter, and to put in these statements which 
1 have no doubt are correct or substantially correct — at all events intended 
to be correct. 

The Judge- Advocate. I desire to say in answer to the gentleman as 
to his statements that this matter has been referred by the Secretary of 
War to the Attorney General, to the Secretary of the Treasury, to the 
Second Comptroller, and to the Third Auditor, and that they have re- 
ported that there was nothing in it, that I know nothing about it, and 
that it is the first intimation 1 have received that any such course of 
proceedings has been taken. I am inclined to think that he has been 
misinformed in the premises. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) O, no. 

The President. If he admits that the figures under the heading of 
1SG7, 1808, 1809, 1870, 1871, and also the figures which follow, are sub- 
stantially })roved, it meets your case; he is then on his defense. 

The Judge- Advocate. Yes, sir; then I will reserve this tabular state- 
ment with the privilege of bringing it up in rebuttal, if it is considered 
desirable and necessary. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) You can })ut in evidence now for 
reference. 

Question. Have you prepared this tabular, statement from the docu- 
ments furnished by the accounting officer of the Treasury "? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. You know whether it is correct or not"? 

Answer. It is correct. 

Question. And the statements furnished by the accounting officers 
under the seal of the Secretary of the Treasury contained the certificate 
embracing what i)eriod of time with reference to these documents re- 
ferred to in this tabular statement ? 

Answer. The whole period of time from March, 1867, to September, 
1871, inclusive. 

Question. Do you know whether or not the documents furnished by 
the accounting officers of the Treasury, under the seal and certificate of 
the Secretary, certified to the fact as to whether they contain all the 
data necessary for your information in order to prepare this statement ? 

Answer. I understand that they arefiflly stated; the figures are fully 
stated. 

The Judge-Advocate. I offer this tabular statement in evidence. 

The President. It will be received for what it is worth. 

[A copy is attached to the record and marked Ex. X'^.] 



407 

Thomas M, Vincent recalled. 

Examined by the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Major, on page 3 of Exhibit B, at the top of the page, are 
two items, $36,341.77 and $73,048.40. Please explain what those refer 
to. 

Answer. These figures are those referred to in tabnhir statements fol- 
lowing on pages 13, 14, and 15. The 873,000 is exi)lained on i)age 14 on 
the exhibit, and involves the items $47,000 and $25,000— $47,807.57 
and $25,240,83. I have made a memorandum here in explanation of 
that. It would seem in looking at these figures that they should 
be added together in order to determine the entire amount. To show 
that they should be so added, I view the transactions as different, and 
therefore, to obtain the entire amount covered bv the transactions, the 
$30,314.77 should be added to the $73,048.40, thus making a total of 
$109,303.17, and in explanation I wouhl say, referring to page 14, that 
as to the sum therein referred to, opposite the date March 24, " to 
amount due officer, $47,807.57," that it was first taken from the bounty- 
fund or moneys coming into the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands under the resolution of Man^h 29, 1807. 

So soon as the deficiency appropriation for 1871 became available, the 
amount was reimbursed to that fund, and the vouchers involved were 
put in with the accounts covering the deficiency appropriation. As to 
the ampunt $25,240.83 referred to in the same statement, that was first 
taken from the bounty-fund under the resolution of March 29, 1807, and 
as soon as the appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, 
became available the fund was re-imbursed and the vouchers were put 
into the Treasury with the accounts of the appropriation for that year, 
ending June 30, 1872. The amount $73,048.40 is made up of the two 
amounts that I have just referred to. The amount $30,314.77 is made 
up of the figures $25,240.83, plus 39.39, $3,710.45, and $7,324.10, 
thus making a total of $36,314.77. It will be observed as to the sum- 
mations there that the amount $25,240.83 is common to both, and if it 
represented but a single transaction it would be proper to take it out of 
the sum $73,048.40, but it in reality represents two transactions, two 
diversions I might say, first in consequence of its being taken from the 
bounty-fund before referred to, and second from the appropriation for 
the support of the Bureau for the year ending June 30, 1872; therefore 
I view that the two amounts, $36,314.77 and $73,048.40, are essential! j' dif- 
ferent, and the summation is necessary to determine the amount covered 
bj' the two transactions. 

Question. That index or synopsis there at the head of that page 3, 
Exhibit B, " vouchers coverimj time suhsequent to the actual date of pay- 
ment and therefore erroneous V 

Answer. That phraseology, I find by referring to the rough of this 
communication, was my own On looking at it the second time, I find 
that unless it be considered by the last paragraph, the paragraph just 
preceding and what follows, it would not be entirely intelligible, but if 
it is expressed in this way, so as to embrace what follows it there, I 
think it would be made clear. Had I to express it again, it would be 
in this way 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) May it please the court, we 
object to any testimony which changes a formal charge presented by the 
Secretary of War. 

The Judge- Advocate. It strikes me that that is rather a singular 
objection. I do not know as we proposed to change any formal charge, 



408 

but as this question has already been gone into by the accused, through 
his counsel, to ascertain the meaning of those words, I think it is proper 
tor the witness to state here, and to exphiin to the court the purport 
and intent of that letter. 

[The court was cleared for deliberation. Ui)ou the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced that the objection is not sustained.] 

The Witness said : 1 would say that the vouchers are made to cover 
time in the account subsequent to the actual date of payment, and 
therefore erroneous ; for the vouchers, according to the abstracts for 
March and May, 1871, purport to have been paid on or subsequent to 
certain dates, when, in fa(;t, they were paid on prior dates. 

Question. On page 14 of Exhibit B, Table B, are several remarks, "to 
amount due officer," and " by amount due officer." Please explain what 
you mean. 

Answer. In looking at the amounts in statement B, it will be observed 
that there is no legitimate source apparent from which the funds were 
derived. Tlie voucliers, however, in support of that statement show 
l^aymeuts, and as the accounts do not sliow from what source the money 
was received, it is proper to state that the money was due officer, due 
the disbursing officer, he having obtained it or secured it from some 
source. The expression is a technical one, and the idea conveyed is the 
same as would be by the same phraseology in a statement of differences, 
for instance from the accounting officer of the Treasury. 

Question. On page 8, Exhibit B, is a letter from yourself,' do you 
know what facts letl to the developments or allegations contained 
under those several headings"? 

Answer. Under the first heading, that of the 174 cases, the facts leading 
to develo[)ments were the letters received from claimants, alleging that 
they had not received their bounties and otlier moneys, payable to them 
througli the Freedinen's Bureau. That, I believe, covers as to the first 
heading. 

The JuoaE- Advocate. May it please the caurt, I will not take up 
your time by going fully into that subject, as it has been already 
thoroughly explained. 

Question. Do you know what called for the preparation of those 
tabular statements from pages 13 to 15 on that exhibit, to which we 
have just been referring? 

Answer. That was called forth by rumors which had reached me that 
the confusion of recoixls of the Bureau of llefugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands had been caused, in part, by a diversion of appro- 
priations, and the consequent discharge of clerks. Some of those rumors 
had reached me j^rior to the communication of mine referred to in this 
Exhibit B, in answer to one from the Commissioner, General Howard, 
and led to a remark in that letter. Subsequently, I heard rumors — 
they were matter of conversation, I believe, among the clerks, but I did 
not attach much importance to them until at a subsequent time, when 
a person by the name of Shaw called at my office, desired an interview, 
and made certain statements. I told him that in order that it might 
receive action it would be better for him to place anything that he 
might have to say in writing. The result of that was a letter dated 
]March 0, 1873. 

The Judge Advocate. I understand the witness has the letter here 
in court ; 1 have not called for it, but it was called for yesterday, ami 
he is ready now to produce it. 

The Witness. After the receipt of this letter, I directed an examina- 



409 

tion to be made of the records of the Bureau to see if there were any 
facts tliere to support the allegations. 

The President. I think you had better read the letter. 

The Witness. It is the only coniinunication that was ever sent to the 
oftice in regard to it. Shall I read itf 

The President. Certainly ; read it. 

[The witness read as follows :] 

Washington, D. C, Mareh 19, 1873. 

Gi'ueral Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General : 

Sir : I liave seen in the New York Tribune and World of a late date what purport 
to be extracts from a letter written by you in reply to one from General 0. O. Howard, 
relative to the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau. It seems from these extracts that 
there is a dispute as to who is re.si)ousible for the confused condition of the hooks, pa- 
jjers, and accounts, it being asserted by the War-Oftice that the confusion existed pre- 
vious to the tiansfei' from Howard University, and was occasioned hy the loose man- 
ner in which the husiness of the Bureau was conducted ; and charged on the other 
hand, by General Howard, that it occurred from the carelessness in making the trans- 
fer after possession was given to the War Department. Believing that it will assist in 
determining that responsibility, I desire to nuike the following statement : 

During the last Sfssion of the Forty-tirst Congress that portion of the appropriation 
hill rehiting to the Bureau was referred by the House Committee on Api)ropriations to 
the Hon. William Lawrence, as a sub-committee, for investigation. Mr. Lawrence, as 
was nsiud, called upon General Howard for the facts, contracts, and papers upon which 
he based his estimates for the exjienses of his Bureau for the ensuing year. Among 
other items was one of about $40,0(iO- for salaries of teachers of freedmen's schools. 
General Howard, in reply to Mr. Lawrence's inquiry as to this item, said he had no 
written contracts, but had employed these teachers for the ensuing year, and had given 
bis word to them that they should be paid and that they should be. As there were no 
contracts, papers, or anytliing else, except General Howard's verbal statements, suh- 
mitted, Mr. Lawrence recommended that the item be stricken out of the bill, which 
was accordingly done. After the adjournment of Congress General Howard discharged 
a number of clerks (I think some eighteen or twenty) and partially supplied their' 
places with colored students from the university, who worked on half time, and with 
the money so saved from the appropriation for clerical hire paid the teachers above 
referred to. 

Capt. L. Duvall was chief of the division for settlement of colored soldiers' boun- 
ties, and some of those student clerks were assigned to his division in place of the 
regular clerks discharged. He frequently, in talking with me, complained of the 
insutiiciency in numbers and abilities of his clerks after the change, saying that he 
could not pioperly transact cue-tenth of the business that came to his division ; that 
he was getting fearfully behind, and that no heed was ever paid to his r<ynonstrances, 
&c. And this condition of affairs continued from 1871 np to the transfer of the Bureau 
to your Dejiartment, at which latter time Captain Duvall was discharged, and now 
resides at Cincinnati, Ohio. During the late war he was an oiiicer in the Second Ken- 
tucky Infantry. 

I think that Mr. Samuel Warren, formerly an employe of the Bureau, and now a 
clerk in the Bureau of Education, is cognizant of the main facts in the above state- 
ment. Captain Brown, of Cincinnati, Ohio, a clerk in the Interior Department, was, 
I believe, one of the clerks discharged by General Howard in 1871. The Hon. William 
Lawrence is a member of the Fortv-third Congress, and his address is Bellefontaine, 
Ohio. 

Upon apfjlicatiou to the above-named gentlemen, I have no doubt that the above 
statement will be corroborated in every particular, and that they can furnish details 
which have escaped my recollection. I '• do not know these facts of my own knowl- 
edge," but I confidently believe them to be true in every essential particular. 

It may be proper to state that I never, to my knowledge, saw General Howard or 
any of the chief ofdcials of the Bureau; that Inever was an employe of or an appli- 
cant for any position or thing within the gift of the Bureau or any of its ofiicers ; and 
that this statement is made voluntarily, and without .iny solicitation from any source 
whatever. 1 make it because I believe it will aid in determining the cause of, and 
responsibility for, the confusion of the records of the Freedmen's Bureau, if any exists. 
1 am, general, very resi)ectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. W. SHAW, 
408 I Street Nottlucest. 



410 

The Witness said : I would add in that connection that prior to the 
interview that led to that communication, I never saw Mr. Shaw, nor 
have I seen him since. 

Question. Do you know by what authority the call was made on the 
Third Auditor in order to obtain the disbursements of the late Bureau, 
mentioned on pages 13 and 14 of Exhibit B ? 

Auswer. That call was made under the authority contained in the 
act of March 3, 1817, which confers authority upon the Secretary of 
War to call upon the Third Auditor of the Treasury for information 
relative to matters intrusted to his charge. 

Question. Refer to letter E on page -JO, Exhibit B, the letter of the 
Secretary of War; have you a copy of that House resolution referred to 
in that letter? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. Will you please read it to the court? 

[The witness read the resolution as follows :] 

FORTY-THIRD CONGRESS, THIRD SESSION. 

congkkss of the united states, 

In the House of Repkesentatives, 

iJecemher 3, 1872. 
On motion of Mr. Wood, 

Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to furnish this House with a copy 
of the report made by General Thomas M. Vincent, Assistant Adjutant-General, on the 
condition of the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau. 
Attest: ED WD McPHERSON, Chrk. 

Official copy : 
Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

The Witness said : I have compared this resolution with the original 
on file in the War Department and find it to be correct, and have so 
attested it. 

By the Court : 
Question. Is that Fernando Wood? 
Answer. Yes; Hon. Fernando Wood, of New York. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What are your duties with reference to the Freedraen's 
Branch of the Adjutant-General's Ofiice? 

Answer. My duties in regard to the Freedmen's Branch of the Adju- 
tant-General's Office are of a genefal character, and are performed un- 
der the Older to me of June 27, 1872, which assigns me to the "im- 
mediate supervision and charge of the duties lately devolving on the 
said Bureau, with directions to look to the arrangement of the records 
and distribution of the duties, so that there will i e the least delay in 
the future transaction of the business, with the view of completing and 
closing it." That is a quotation from the report which is here. 

Question. What difhculties, if any, have you had in conducting the 
current business of the Bureau with reference to the past reciords i 

Answ'er. There has been a good deal of difticulty, nuicli of it con'- 
nected with the payment of bounties to colored claimants. These diffi- 
culties resulted, in a measure, from the condition of the Bureau when 
transferred to the Adjutant-General's Office. 

By the COURT : 
Question. The Bureau, or the Bureau records ? 



411 

Answer. The Bureau records, such as were transferred. One diffi- 
culty eucouutered was in couuectiou with the bounty register, which 
was found to be unreliable after we had commenced paymeuts to claim- 
ants, and which necessitated the stoppage of work until it was re- 
examined and compared with the records of the Second Auditor's Of- 
fice. Other difficulties resulted from complaints being made, and upon 
reference to the records as transferred we would have difficulty in 
tracii]g' the case through them. This resulted in part from the records 
of the disbursiug officer, letters received prior to January 1, 1871, not 
beiug entered in books of letters received. Of those letters there were 
some 11,000 or 12,000 relating to matters of payment, making complaint 
that the bounty-moneys had not been received, and so ou. They were 
simply, npon the recei])t in the Bureau, stamped with the date of receipt, 
not taken up in any way, so that if any one of the writers should subse- 
quently refer to his previous comnnmication there was no way of trac- 
ing it. Those communications, about 12,000, will occupy, when ar- 
ranged, some 45 or IG volumes, made of the ordinary adhesive file, es- 
timating 250 to a volume. Up to the present date there have been 
about 10 volumes which have been arranged and indexed. 

Question. Do you say 45 or 46 ? 

Answer. Forty-tive or 40. We do not know how many precisely until 
we get through with the work. It w^as found, also, that when commu- 
nications had been sent from the Burean and acted upon, probably by 
the Secretary of War or other person to whom sent for action, npon 
the return to the Bureau there would be no notation made of the 
action had. Then, too, the records — but previous to referring to that, I 
would say that these defects might be illustrated by referring to the 
record, such as we had, of what is know n as the retained-bounty fund, 
the matter of the Maudeville defalcations, the matter of agents' fees or 
fees of suspended agents and attorneys, and other cases which 1 do not 
now recall. Then, after the transfer, the difficulties came np as to the 
State records. An examination indicated that many of the recor<ls were 
missing, and, owing to that, matters of business coming up could not be 
properly answered or referred to. 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. Speaking generally, in what did the defectiveness consist 
with reference to these State records ? What was the trouble with refer- 
ence to ascertaining information ? 

Answer. The trouble in ascertaining information was in consequence 
of their not having been properly and carefully arranged. In many 
cases there were no index-books, and some of them were found to be 
erroneously labeled, and arranged loosely in other respects. 

Question. Have you any illustrations to give on that subject? 

Answer. 1 do not recall any illustrations at this time. 

Question. Can you state any more definitely what records, if any, 
Avere missing, which belonged to the Bureau proper! 

Answer. As to the Bureau proper, I find here a memorandum which 
1 have had made, and which was the subject of communication to Gen- 
e»al Howard, as the communication, I believe, is referred to in this Ex- 
ecutive document. 

Question. On what page? 

Answer. It is referred to on page 57, E. With that letter was trans- 
mitted this list, which is referred to as a foot-note on the bottom of page 
58, stating that the missing or deficient records \> hich accomijanied this 



412 

letter covered eleven paj^es of legal-cap paper. This 1 have compared, 
myself, with the original on file, and find it to be correct. 

[The memoranda were offered in evidence by the judge-advocate, and 
received, there being no objection on the part of the accused, and are 
attached to the record, and marked Exhibit Y*'.] 

Question, What records were su)>plied, after that communication, by 
the late Commissioner, General Howard? 

Answer. After that communication, General Howard made arrange- 
ments to have the missing records sent in, and was aided by the Adju- 
tant-General's Ofiice, through clerical labor, and in that way corre- 
spondence was instituted with the agents referred to in the list, and as 
the result up to the present time the records referred to in this list 
have been received. This list is made from the list preserved in the 
Office, and to which additions are made as fast as the records come in. 

By the Court : 

Question. Up to what date was that made? 

Answer. Up to within two or three days ago 5 arranged under the 
headings of whom received, the nature of the records, and the date 
when we notified General Howard of the receipt of them. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Have you struck a balance? 

Answer. No ; I have not. In the same communication, a reference 
is made to what was known as Letter C^, for 1806. I had an analysis of 
that made from the books. That file of letters has never been restored 
to the Office, and I find it embraces a total of 162 communications. 

Question. Letters sent or letters received ! 

Answer. Letters received. 

[The judge advocate offered list of records received subsequent to 
January 28, 1873, in evidence, and an analysis of Letter 0. There be- 
ing no objection on the part of the accused, they were received, at- 
tached to the record, and marked, respectively. Exhibits Z*^ and A'^.] 

The V\ ITNE8S. Here I find a memorandum, which I prepared my- 
self, in going through the Office, of letters received and not entered in 
the disbursing office subsequent to January 1, 1871. The records in 
the disbursing office, that I have previously referred to, were prior to 
this date. These were taken up and entered after the transfer, and 
number 1,121. I find here that the number previously referred to is 
11,250. I said 12,U00 : probably 45 volumes of 250 letters each. In the 
claim division, prosecution branch, there were 523 letters taken up and 
entered after the transfer. In the Commissioner's or the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Oflfice there were only a very few, which we entered after the 
transfer. There were probably 200 other papers, extending back to 
1865, which were not entered. They are now being arranged with a 
view to proper entry, &c., and are illustrated by the most important 
which are here. Shall I give a brief description of these ? 

Question. You may explain one or two of them to illustrate. 

Answer. Here is a letter dated August 7, 1865, from the Treasury 
Department, signed by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mi'. McCulloc^, 
in relation to the transfer of abandoned lands from the Treasury De- 
partment to the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

By the Coukt : 
Question. I understand you to mean that those were received but not 
entered ? 



413 

Answer. They were received and not entered in the adjutant-gen- 
eraPs office. 

Question. Of the Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Answer. Of tbe Freedmen's Bureau. Here is a report from General 
Charles H. Howard, inspector of South Carolina, Geori^ia, and Florida. 
Report of a tour of inspection in Georgia and Florida with reference to 
operations under the order establishino- a public cotton- warehouse ; the 
order establishing- a board for examining applicants for rations and of 
meetings with planters in regard to contracts for laborers, and to niit 
of buildings for school purposes; a letter from Captain J. M. Brown, 
dated July 27, 1805, reporting relative to lands and buildings south of 
the Potomac occupied by the United States. 

The Peesident. I suppose that is enough to illustrate your list. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Do you know whether any of these have been required in 
the current business of the office since you have had charge of itf 

Answer. ; cannot say, but it is my impression that they have never 
been called up. In the prosecution branch of the claim division there 
were some papers fonnd as not entered. Among others, which came to 
my notice on inspection of the office, was a memorandum, not signed, rel- 
ative to frauds under the old system, that is, prior to the establishment 
of the Freedmen's Bureau, in 1865, bearing what I recognized as an 
original indorsement by Mr. French. 

Question. Do you know whether any applications were made by 
soldiers or not for irregularly retained bounty-funds claimed by them to 
be due ! Have there been any such cases since yoa took charge of the 
office ? 

Answer. No cases that I know of. The matter, if I remember rightly, 
resulted from a communication from a person in North Carolina or Vir- 
ginia interested in the fund, which led to a letter, the first letter on the 
subject, from the Adjutant-General's Office to General Howard. I have 
since endeavored to trace that letter, but have not been able to do so in 
consequence of not remembering the name of the person — the name of 
the writer. 

Question. Do you know whether or not the War Department ever fur- 
nished General Howard, while Couimissioner of the Bureau, with the 
same species of information that is being furnished the present officers 
of the Bureau toward facilitating the identification and payment of 
claimants ; if so, what kind of information is furnished ? How long has 
it continued ? 

Answer. There was some correspondence in regard to that matter, 
which is referred to in these papers. This corresi)ondence resulted from 
calls made by Mr. Drew, who was chief of the claim division in the 
Freedmen's Bureau ; some simply by memoranda, which were answered 
in a similar way by the bureau of colored troops, and others by letters 
signed by Drew. It was suspected that these letters were written and 
these calls made without the sanction of General Howard ; and upon 
his attention being called to the fact, he replied that they had been 
made without his sanction, and thanked the Adjutant-General or my- 
self, whoever it was who wrote the letter, for communicating the infor- 
mation to him. This letter was then received ; it is quite lengthy, and 
states the kind of information needed. Was duly received and submit- 
ted by an indorsement. Was, after an indorsement made by General 
Howard, submitted by one from myself to the Adjutant-General, and 
replied to October 27,1808. That reply is here. I have compared it 



414 

with the original. It was in my handwriting, and submitted to the 
Adjutant-General, and by him signed. 

Question. Do you know how long this information was furnished ? 

Answer. That information was furnished without making any inqui- 
ries concerning the use to which it was to be applied, until on or about 
the date of this corresi)oudence. Subsequently we confined ourselves to 
furnishing infonnation strictly applicable to the identification of claim- 
ants after awards had been made by the Treasury Department and the 
moneys placed in the hands of the Bureau Ibr payment. 

Question. What caused that change '? 

Answer. The reason, the main reason leading to the change, was that 
the records of the Adjutant-General's Oflice were viewed and held as 
records tor verification, and to be applied to the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, the same regulations as were applied 
to other persons or sources a])plying for information, the idea being to 
hold our information, and then when call was made from the Pension- 
Office by the Commissioner of Pensions, or by the Second Auditor's 
Office, to verify a claim pending before it, we would furnish to that office 
the information. 1 find here, in connection with the information given 
out of the Bureau, a meiu^pranda, by one Mr. Kellogg, an attorney or 
claim-agent in this city, given to Mr. Drew, the chief of the claims 
division of the Freedmen's Bureau, and returned by him to the appli- 
cant, stating that he could not furnish under the new arrangement the 
information asked for. 

Question. Just read that. You found that, you say, among the records 
of the office ? 

AnsAver. No ; this did not come into the Freedmen's Bureau, but 
came into the bureau of colored troops, and became a part of the record 
of that bureau. The memoranda is as follows: 

" The mother of Charles William Johnson, colored, wishes to find out 
what regiment and company he enbsted in. He was killed in battle. 
She savs he enlisted at Benedict, on the Potomac, in Maryland, in the 
fall of 'l8G3, or winter of 18G4. 

" J. L. KELLOGG, Box 717." 

Mr. Drew's answer is as follows : 

" Eespectfully returned to brother Kellogg, with information that 
these facts cannot be obtained of this bureau, the A. G. O. having 
recently formally declined to give such information. 

"WILLIAM P. DREW, 
" Chief Claims Biv., Bureau of R. F. A. B. 

" September 23." 

There is a memorandum here in my own handwriting, as follows : 

'' Left by Attorney Kellogg, who called at A. G. O. for the informa- 
tion. 

" T. M. v., A. A. G." 

[The judge-advocate here offered in evidence a letter dated Wash- 
ington, September 30, 1868, signed William P. Drew, and a letter from 
the Adjutant- General of the United States Army to General O. O. 
Howard, dated October 27, 1868, and there being no objection on the 
part of the accused, the letters were received, attached to the record, 
and marked Exhibits B'^ and C" respectively.] 

Question. What is that you hold in your hand? 

Answer. This is an application for a detail of General Runkle in the 
Bureau of Refugees. He was then a brevet brigadier-general at that 
time. This was in 1866. 



415 

Qopstion. From General Howard I 

Answer. From General Howard. 

Qnestion. And the order detailing him ? 

Answer. This is a copy of the special order number 40, dated January 
30, 18G6, detailing him. 

The President. By whose order was he detailed ? 

The Judge-Advocate. By the order of the Secretary of War, on 
api)lication of General Howard. 

[Tbe judge-advocate offered letter of application and special order 
number 40, dated January 30, ISGG, in evidence, and they were received, 
there being no objection on the part of the accused, and attached to the 
record, and marked respectively Exhibits D^ and B".] 

.Question. Do yon know whether any vouchers have been rendered to 
the War Department for expenditure of the interest or increase result- 
ing from the purchase by General Howard or General Balloch, as chief 
disbursing officer, of 8250,000 United States 5-20 bonds"? 

Answer. No vouchers have been rendered to the War Department or 
to the freedmen's branch of the Adjutant-General's Office for that in- 
terest-fund. 

By the Court : 
Question. Did you expect such return ? 

Answer. We did not. The vouchers and accounts go to the Treasury 
Department. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. How many cases have been paid of bounty claims, involv- 
ing how much monev, from date of discontiuuance of the Bureau, July 
1, 1872, to March 1,^874 ! 

Answer. Four thousand five hundred and forty-one cases, covering 
$701,300.37, to March 1, 1874. 

Question. How much dul it cost for the Bureau for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1873 — the expenses ? 

Answer. $58,808.34. 

Question. And how much since, up to March 1, 1874? 

Answer. $40,025.15. I recognize this as a memorandum that I made, 
[alluding to paper which he held in his hand, and from which he read 
the several amounts.] 

Question. Can you give any explanation as to the amount of tiiese 
expenses for that j)eriod f 

Answer. In 1873, the Bureau having been transferred June 30, 1872 — 
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1873, the business had to be re- 
established. In reality, there were comparatively few payments made 
prior to the 1st of January, 1873. The mass of the payments were made 
subsequent to that date, so that in the year ending June 30, 1873, 
payments may be said to have run only for six months. For the 
year ending June 30, 1874, the current fiscal year, the appropriation 
estimated for was $100,000. That, however, was reduced to $50,000; 
and of that $50,000 we have expended $40,025.15 up to March 1. I find 
here, by referring to the report for the year 1873, that up to January 1 
of that year we had only paid out about $37,000. 

Question, Will you please tell me what that series of papers under 
the seal of the Department consists of that I now^ hand you "? 

Answer. These are papers referring to the bond matters known as the 
$334,875 and $250,000 of bonds, which were developed under the com- 
munications of the Secretary of War. 
The Judge-Advocate. I offer the papers in evidence. 



416 

A member of tlie court objected. 

The Accused, (through his counseL) May it please the court, we ad- 
mit the .SL'oO,!)!)!) aud the $;)00,0()l) bond matter, and justify it. The 
court will perceive that one "louud of our objection is, that in order to 
replj' to tiie evidence adduced here, we have to wait until it is printed, 
and from the progress made so far in the [>rinting of the exhibits pre- 
sented, we should probably have to wait four or Ave or six weeks before 
we would have an opportunity of examining these that are now offered. 
I suggest that they be put in for reference without printing them. 

The Judge Advocate. I consider the papers material, and in that 
view offer them in evidence. They comprise all the exhibits that I have 
to offer in the case. 

[The court w\as cleared for deliberation. 

Upon the doors being re-opened, the accused and his counsel being 
present, the judge-advocate announced that the court postponed the 
question of receiving the papers in evidence for the present, with leave 
to him to offer them again, or any part of them, at any subsequent stage 
of the case. 

Direct examination concluded.] 

Cross ■ exam ina tion . 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Referring to your examination as to the items at the top of 
page 3 of the printed exhibit, I understand you to say that those items, 
in your judgment, should be added together '? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I also understand you to say that the item of $25,000 should 
be taken from it ? 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And that item of $25,000 should be taken from each of the 
other items ? 

Answer. Y^'es, sir. 

Question. That of $30,000 and of $73,000. 

Answer. Yes. 

Question. And also that all this money has been returned, made good, 
re-imbursed ! 

Answer. So far as this $73,000 is concerned. 

Question. As far as the $36,314.77 is concerned, has that been re- 
imbursed ? 

Answer. That has been diverted and covered by vouchers from the 
appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 3872. 

Question. Does it remain now a deficiency ? ' 

Answer. In my view it does. 

Question That is to say that the Freedmen's Bureau or the Commis- 
sioner has $30,000 which does not belong to him. 

Answer. Not that the Commissioner has it, that the late Bureau is 
responsible for that amount. 

Questiou. Therefore that the late Bureau has it ? 

Answer. Not that the late Bureau has it, as 1 stated before; it is cov- 
ered by the vouchers. 

Question. I do not wish to misunderstand you about this. If the late 
Bureau has not this money, and the money has been accounted for, 
who, then, is accountable for that nu^ney ? 

Answer. The matter hinges on whether the accountability has existed 
or not ; that is, the amount of thirty-six aud some odd thousand dollars 



417 

has been covered by the vouchers put iu with the appropriations for 
the fiscal year endinj^ June 30, 1872 ; if the amounts covered by the 
vouchers were properly chargeable to that appropriation, the money 
woukl be accounted for, not otherwise. 

Question. But is not that a matter for the accounting officers of the 
Treasury and not for the War Department, the matter of proper ac- 
counting"? 

Answer. That is a question that woukl rest with the accounting of- 
ficers of the Treasury. 

Question. By the way, when did you know of the fact that this had 
been reimbursed ! 

Answer. This $3G,000 ? 

Question. Either of these items f 

Answer. The fact of re-imbursement became known ; 1 do not know 
the exact date when that became known. It would appear from these 
statements. 

Question. Was it known prior to September 23, 1873, the date of your 
letter which covered these statements? 

An&wer. It was known prior to that date. 

Question. Then, ma-jor, what did you mean, in that letter on page 12, 
where you say that steps should betaken to recover the amount ? 

Answer. [Reading.] " Were without warrant of law, and, therefore, 
the question as to whether steps should be taken to recover the amount 
is naturally presented." This, as I take it, goes back to the very ques- 
tion referred to a few minutes since, as to the — ; — 

Question. Explain it in your own way, what you meant by that lan- 
guage ? 

Answer. The answer to that is this, that if these amounts were legal- 
ly and legitimately expended, well and good ; if not, the question would 
arise whether or not the amounts should not be recovered and restored 
to legal control under the ordinary forms, through the accounting offi- 
cers of the Treasury. 

Question. Did you mean the language to apply simply to a re-account- 
ing ; was that your meaning ? 

Answer. To a re-accounting? 

Question. The word " recover" has a meaning"? 

Answer. " Eecover " means — iu the sense that I have used it there, "re- 
cover" means to bring the monej^ back so that it would become availa- 
ble for legal and legitimate purposes. 

Question. Then your meaning was that if this amount of money had 
been actually paid out by the Commissioner, but it had been misstated 
by being put in the wrong accounts, the Commissioner ought to be com- 
pelled to pay the whole ? 

Answer. Should be compelled to pay the whole. 

Question. In this matter of Shaw and his letter, did you make any ex- 
amination at the time as to the truth of his statements ? 

Answer. I did not; the letter was received, and in connection with 
the previous rumors that I refer to, I gave directions that the records 
of the Bureau should be examined to see if there was any truth in the 
allegations. 

Question. Did you have any examination made of the appropriation 
act to see whether in fact he had stated the truth or a falsehood in re- 
gard to the item of $40,000 ? 

Answer. I do not precisely get your question. 

Question. In that letter he made a statement, in regard to a certain 
27 H c 



418 

item of 840,000 being stricken out; did yon examine the appropriation 
bill to see if that was the fact? 

Answer. 1 did not examine it ; the examination was confined to the 
records of the Bureau. 

Question. Was your action in this matter induced by this movement 
of Shaw, or by the movement of Representative Wood ? 

Answer. It was not induced by either of them, further than this, 
that it led to the examination of the records. My feelings at the time 
were that I would give no importance to it at all until the official records 
should have an opportunity of speaking. 

(Question. Did you ask Mr. Wood to call upon the Adjutant-General 
for the letter which has been printed ! 

Answer. Mr. Fernando Wood? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. I did not. In that connection, I would like to state more 
fully if you desire it 

Question. I have no objection. 

Answer. That I know Mr. W^ood by sight only. I have never spoken 
a word to him, and I do not believe that he knows me even by sight. 

Question. Do yon remember at the time of the discontinuance of the 
Freed men's Bureau that it was brought to a close by the desire' of the 
Secretary of War ; do you know the fact I 

Answer. As I understand it, it was not brought to a close by the 
desire of the Secretary of War; there is some correspondence on that 
subject which fully explains the matter. That correspondence is here. 

Question. At the time of the discontinuance of this Bureau, do you 
know the fact that General Howard had been absent for several months? 

Answer. At the time of the discontinuance 1 

Question. Immediately before the discontinuance? 

Answer. I knew he was absent from sometime in the latter pare 
of the winter or early spring until June. 

Question. What year ! 

Answer. 1872. 

Question. Do you know whether he was absent on official duty under 
orders ? 

Answer. He was absent under orders on official duty. 

[Cross-examination closed.] 

Ee-direct examination by the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. You say you have that correspondence here as to the dis- 
continuance of the Bureau. Please state what it is. 

Answer. 1 find here a memorandum that on April 1,1872 — this will come 
in in explanation, and save time in the future — there was a communica- 
tion from theCommitteeouFreedmen'sAifairs, House of Representatives, 
dated April 1, 1872, inclosing House bill 1359, abolishing the Freedmen's 
Bureau and appropriating $100,000 to close up its affairs, and request- 
ing such information as can be furnished by Friday next. This com- 
munication came from the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, but the 
answer was addressed to the Committee on Appropriations ; that evi- 
dently was a mistake or oversight at the time. 

The first communication is April 1, 1872, from the Hon. Mr. Cobb, as 
follows : 

forit-second coxgkess united states, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, Ain-il 1, 1872. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War : 

Sir : I inclose a bill, introduced by myself, for tlie abolition of the Freednieu's Bureau, 



419 

in wliicli an appropriation of one linudretl tbousaud dollars is asked for, to close np the 
same. If you can conveniently furnish me with data by Friday next, (the regular 
meeting day of the Comniittee on Fre'eduien's Affairs,) I would be much obliged. The 
committee would like to have a statement from you, which would authorize them to 
ask the House for the approi)riation. 
Very respectful! v, 

CLINTON L. COBB, Chairman, 
By J. McFARLAND, Clerk. 

On April 12. or rather on April 13, General Whittlesey addressed a 
commmiicatiou to the houorable Mr. Cobb, aud covered it by letter of 
April 16 to the Secretary of War. The letter to Mr. Cobb is as follows ; 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, April 13, 1872. 
Hon. C. L. Cobb, M. C, 

Chairman Committee on Fveedmen^s Affairs : 
Sir : In compliance with the request of the committee, I have the honor to jiresent 
in detail the estimate for funds needed to close the work of this Bureau. 

For balances on amounts pledged for the construction of scliool-buildings previous 
to Juh^ 1, 1870, General Howard's estimate, as given in his letter dated Februaiy 2-5, 
is $25,UUU. 

This estimate is made up as follows: 

For Leland University, New Orleans ,$7, 925 

For Berea College, Berea, Ky 7, 000 

For orphan asylum, Helena, Ark 2, 000 

For normal school, Chattanooga, Tenn 1, pOO 

For high school, Augusta, Ga 5, 000 

For high school, Washington , N. C 1 , 200 

For school, Chesterfield, IS. C ()00 

For school, Mount Pleasant, M<1 2.^0 

For school, Hy atts ville, Md 300 

For school. Camp Nelson, Ky 131 

Total 25,406 

In these cases the parties were prouused the sums named if they woiald purchase 
land and raise and expend an equal sum themselves in beginning tlie construction of 
the buildings. In a majority of the cases they have done so; this fact may, perhaps, 
render these claims legal. The pledge given by the Commissioner was similar to the 
copy inclosed. 

To meet the deficiency in appropriation for the current fiscal year, General Howard's 
estimate is ^$50,000. This amount nuiy be reduced to $25,000, provided the collection 
and payment of bounties remain in great measure suspended till the end of the fiscal 
year. But such suspension is a great wrong to the colored soldiers and will cause a 
heavy loss to the Government by the destruction of its defenses against fraudulent 
claims. 

For settlement of old accounts for transportation and subsistence, $10,000. 

In 186() aud 1867 orders for the transportation of refugees and freedmen were issued 
by the Commissioner. Bills for this service were paid in many cases by the quarter- 
masters. Some such bills have not yet been rendered by the railroad and steamboat 
companies. It is impossible to give the exact amount of these charges against the 
Bureau, as they have not all been examined and audited. But it is believed that the 
estimate is sutficient to cover the whole. 

The other items, amounting to $13,800 for completing the records and leaving them 
in proper condition for future reference, are sufticieutly clear, I think, without explana- 
tion. 

Very respectfullv, your obedient ser\'aut. 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acting Assistant Adjntant-Generalj and Actimj Commissioner. 

That was transmitted to the Secretary of War by this letter : 

WAii Defartment, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Washington, D. C.,Ax)ril 16, 1872. 
The Hon. Secretary of War: 

Sir: I have the honor to request that the inclosed communication be forwarded to 
the clerk of the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, House of Representatives. 



420 

It has been prepared at tlie request of the committee, iu esplauatiou of the estimate 
for $100,000 by the Commissioner. 

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Cobb, is now absent ; I have, therefore, been 
tUreet(^.(l to inclose my communication addressed to the clerk. 
Very resi^ectfnlly, your obedient servant, 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant General, 
In the absence of the Commissioner. 

After that a letter was atldressed to the Second Auditor of the Treas- 
ury by the Secretary of War. In March, 1872, the following comuiuui- 
catiou was sent to the Senate and House of Representatives : 

War Department, 
Washington City, March 21, 1872. 
The Secretary of War has the honor to submit to the United States Senate and House 
of Representatives the inclosed communication from the officer temporarily iu charge of 
the Bureau of Refugees Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in reference to its tiaancial 
condition, for the information of Congress, and in connection with the bill (H. R. 1359) 
proposing the abolishment of the Bureau, now pending before the Committee on Freed- 
meu's Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

WILLIAM W. BELKNAP, 

Secrelari} of War. 
Official : 
Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant General. 
^ Adjutant-General's Office, J^;'(7 22, 1874. 

The communication referred to above is numbered 2312, W. D., 1672. 

1 have compared that with the original and find it to be a true cojiy. 
April 12th, 1872, the Secretary of War addressed the following letter 
to the Second Auditor : 

War Department, 

Washington City, April 12, 1872. 
To the S*:coND Auditor of the Treasury : 

Su: : A bill (H. R. 1359) providing for the abolishment of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
&c., has been referred to this Department by the Committee on Freedmen's Atfairs ; 
among the provisions of which is one that provides for the settlement of all legal 
claims against the Bureau, and for the perfection of the records of the same, and anoth- 
er continuing in force all acts or part of acts pertaining to the collection and payment 
of bounties or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors,^aud mariners, or their heirs, 
to be carried into effect by the Secretary of War. 

In the examination of this subject, it has occurred to me that, as all such claims of 
white soldiers or their heirs are settled by Treasury officials, your OtTice particularly, it 
would be more proper to have the first-named class settled iu the same manner, than 
to retain in force the discrimination that is now made in this respect. 

With a view to further enlightenment upon the subject, I have the honor to in vite from 
you such suggestions as you may bo pleased to make upon the expediency of transfer- 
ring this ]3ortion of the business of the Freedmen's Bureau to your Office. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM W. BELKNAP, 

Sceretary of War. 
Official : 
Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 
Adjutant-General's Office, April 22, 1874, 

To which the Second Auditor replied, under date of April 24, 1872, as 

follows : 

Treasury Department, Second Auditor's Office, 

April 24, 1872. 
To the Secretary op War : 

Sir: Your letter of the 12th instant, stating that a bill (H. R. 1359) providing for the 
aboliishment of the Freedmen's Bureau, and for continuing in force all acts partaining 
to the collection and payment of bounties, &c., due colored soldiers or their heirs, to 



421 

be carried into effect by the Secretary of War, bad been referred to your Department 
by the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, aud iuviciuo; suggestions upon the expediency 
of transferring that portion of the Freedmen's Bureau to this Office, has been received. 

In reply, Iliave the honor to state that from the examination and settlement of the 
claims of colored soldiers or their heirs, I have long since been convinced of the utility 
aud necessity of some such a system as that oi-ganized by the Freedmen's Bureau. 
Since the commencement of the settlement of claims under the joint operation of the 
Freedmen's Bureau aud this Office, there have been adjusted over seventy thousand 
claims, and about fifteen millions of dollars disbursed. There have been rejected for 
different causes about twenty thousand cases, many of which, however, may be revived 
and settled, leaving at present in the files awaiting initial or final action about thir- 
teen thousand claims, which will involve a disbursement of not less than two millions 
of dollars. The difficulty of reaching by mail, persons generally so illiterate and ob- 
scure, seldom resident near a post-office, and so little likely to be known to a postmas- 
ter ; the chaotic character of the social and domestic relations of the colored race while 
in a .state of slavery, which renders it often an extremely difficult and delicate matter 
to decide between several contesting parties; the irregularities permitted iu respect 
to marriage; the long separation of near relatives in many cases, and the general crc 
<lulity with which the race is apt to listeii to the proposals of a sharper, render it almost 
impossible to attempt to settle this class of claims, without far greater precaution and 
checks than are required in the case of white soldiers. 

It has been the uniform experience of the Office, that for the prevention and detec- 
tion of fraud, the proper identification of claimants and their protection, not only 
against the chicanery of unscrupulous parties, but their own ignorance, there is needed 
some kind of an organization that can deal directly with the claimants themselves. 
This is impossible for the officials of the Treasury to do in their capacity as accounting- 
officers, from the technical limitation aud definition of their duties by statute, the 
lack of any appropriation from which to pay the agents, who must be employed on 
such service, the absence of any authorized mode of extending such agencies over a 
large extent of country, and the nature of the service itself, which appears to be for- 
eign to the purposes for which an accounting Bureau is created. 

From the fact that numerous attempts at fraud have been prevented before fruition, 
and that committed frauds have iu many instances been detected, and dishonest 
parties brought to punishment, through the co-operation of the Bureau, it is shown 
that a well-organized system for investigations of this kind, be it attached to what 
department of the Government it may, is absolutely necessary, and iu fact it has been 
fouud that such investigations are more likely to be uninfluenced by local considera- 
tions than when made by persons constantly resident at the place of investigation ; and 
in the absence of the Bureau as it was, no branch of the Government appears, by its 
centralization of power, the number and wide distribution of its officials, their general 
intelliireuce and fidelity, and their immediate responsibility to headquarters, so well 
fitted for a work of this kind as the one indicated in the bill. 

I therefore earnestly express the belief that the ti'ue interests of both claimants and 
the Government require that the investigation with reference to the settlement and 
payment of such claims shall be made by the War Department. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. B. FKENCH, 

Auditor. 

I recognize that as Mr, French's letter, and have been told by him 
that that is his signature to it. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is that the original letter ? 
Answer. That is the original letter. 
[The following is the House bill 1359 :] 

[Forty-second Congress, second session, H. R. 1359.] 

In the House of Representatives, Februmy .5, 1872 ; read twice, referred to the 
Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, and ordered to be printed. 

Mr. Cobb, on leave, introduced the following bill : 

A BILL abolisfiing the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, aud providing for the 
continuance} of the Fi'eedmen's Hospital in the District of Columbia. 

Be it enacted by the Senafe\and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
shall bo discontinued June thirtieth, anno Domini eighteen hundred aud seventy-two, 



422 

and that all agents, clerks, and other employees then on dnty shall be discharged, ex- 
cept snch as may be retained by the Secretary of War for the purposes of this act. 

Sec. 2. That all acts and parts of acts pertaining to the collection and i)aynient of 
bounties, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs, 
shall remain in force until otherwise ordered by Congress, the same to be carried into 
eftVct by the Secretary of War, who may employ such clerical force as may be necessary 
for the purpose. 

Sec. 3. That the present Commissioner of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freednien and 
Abandoned Lands shall be granted, under the direction of the Secretary of War, such 
a period, after June thirtieth, auno Domini eighteen hundred and seventy-two, as may 
be necessary to enable him to settle all legal claims against tiie said Bureau, and to 
perfect the records of the same, except such as may be transferred under section two 
of this act. 

Sec. 4. That, for the purposes of the foregoing section, the sum of one hundred 
thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby, appropriated. 

Sec. 5. That, after June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, the Freedmeu's 
Hospital in the District of Columbia shall, until otherwise ordered by Congress, be con- 
tinued under the supervision and control of a board consisting of three persons, viz : 
The Surgeon-General of the Army, the governor of tlie District of Columbia, and the 
surgeon in charge of the hospital, who shall submit all estiuuites and pass all accounts 
through the Secretary of War, and be accountable to the Treasury of the United States 
for all expenditures. 

Sec. 6. That there is hereby appropriated for the support of the Freedmen's Hospital, 
in the District of Columbia, for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred 
and seventy-three, the sum of seventy thousand dollars. 

Attached to the bill is a letter dated War Department, April 2G, 1872, 
as follows: 

War Department, Washington City, April 26, 1872. 
Hon. J. A. Garfield, 

Chairman Committee on A2)propriations, House of Representatives : 

Sir : In reply to your reference of the bill (H. E. 1359) proposing the abolishment of 
the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds for the views of thisjDepart- 
ment thereupon, I have the honor to report as follows : 

The bill which provides for the discontinuance of the Bureau proposes to require the 
continuance of the work now performed under its auspices and under the authority of 
the several acts relating to the collection aud payment of bounties and other moneys 
due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, their heirs, &c.., under the direction of the 
War Department, aud appropriates one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for the 
purpose of enabling the present Commissioner to settle all legal claims against said 
Bureau, and to perfect its records, except such as may be transferred under the \mo- 
vision requiring the Secretary of War to settle the claims referred to. It is believed 
that the interests of the Government would be best subserved by requiring all the 
business of the Bureau aud all its records to be immediately transferred to tlie Secre- 
tary of War for settlement and arrangement under his immediate supervision. 

The following is an itemized estimate of the amount required to settle the affairs of 
the Bureau, as prepared by the Commissioner; and to the explanatory remarks follow- 
ing each item, attention is respectfully invited. 

Twenty-five thousand dollars for the payment of amounts pledged for the construc- 
tion of the following-named school-buildings, viz : 

To Lelaud University, New Orleans $7, 925 

To Berea College, Berea, Ky 7, 000 

To Orphan Asylum, Helena, Ark 2,000 

To noruK^l school, Chattanooga, Tenu 1, 000 

To high school, Aut;nsta, Ga 5, 000 

To high school, Washington, N. C 1,200 

To school, Chesterfield, S. C 600 

To school, Mount Pleasant, Md 250 

To school, Hyattsville, Md 300 

To school, Camp Nelson, Ky 131 

Total 25,406 

The above institutions were promised the sums named by the Commissioner of the 
Bureau as aid in the construction of school-buildings. 

Assistance was extended to mauy similar institutions from the appropriation for 
the past fiscal year, which, however, was found to be too limited to justify the fulfill- 
ment of the promises made to those above named. No legal contract was made with 



423 

any of those colleges, or obligation other than a moral one assumed, but it is under- 
stood that some of them, relying upon this promise, have commenced the construction 
of their school-buildings, and are now unable to proceed for want of funds. 

Fifty thousand dollars for deficiencies for current expenses of the Bureau for the 
present fiscal year. 

At the time this estimate was made the Bureau was in full operation. Since then 
all business of paying bounties has been sto^iped, all offices outside of that at Wash- 
ington closed, and if the business of the Bureau is not resumed this estimate can be 
reduced to §"^5,(X)0. This suspension of tlie work of the Bureau is, however, a great 
wrong to the colored soldiers, and if continued would cause a heavy loss to the Gov- 
ernment by destruction of its defenses against fraudulent claims. In this connection, 
attention is invited to the accompanying communication from the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury, which will partially illustrate the importance of the work now suspended. 

Ten thousand dollars for payment of officers and clerks while engaged in putting 
the records in order for future reference. 

There are now but two regular clerks employed by the Bureau and some three or 
four others on half duty. (These are students at the university.) Until within a year 
and a half, when appropriations were reduced, the records were generally kept up ; 
but reduction of clerical force became necessary, and they have been falling behind 
ever since. 

Ten thousand dollars for settlement of transportation accounts and accounts for 
subsistence stores not yet examined. 

Large numbers of transi^ortation and subsistence accounts, which have been sent to 
the Bureau from the Quartermaster-General's Office and Subsistence Office, are pending, 
unsettled, and this item is for their settlement. It is bejieved that the whole amount 
of the estimate will be required. 

Three thousand dollars for office-rent, fuel, lights, and stationery. 

The records occupy quite a number of large rooms, up and down stairs, in the uni- 
versity building, and are partially arranged for access for reference. A building will 
be required to contain them. Kent is now being paid for the rooms at present 
occupied. 

Eight hundred dollars for transportation of records from outside offices to Wash- 
ington. 

All outside offices being closed, (as now ordered,) the records are to be sent to Wash- 
ington, and this amount is estimated, for their transportation. The final accounts of 
many officers have been received, while others are still delayed ; but in the great ma- 
jority of instances the records have not been transmitted to Washington. 

With the foregoing remark the bill is resjiectfully returned to the committee. 
Very respectfullj', your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 

Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

April 22, 1874. 

That is why I made the preliminary explauatiou; the communication 
came from the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, but the letter is ad- 
dressed to the Committee on Appropriations. This is a true copy from 
the original. 

By the Court : 

Question. Does the Adjutant-General file every letter received, regard- 
less of the subject-matter or its importance "I 

Answei\ He does, except letters of transmittal. They are generally 
noted and then destroyed. I would qualify that by saying, transmitting 
returns and so on ; I would add also that the personal reports of officers 
are noted on the books kept for the purpose and then destroyed. 

Question. How is it in case of the same letter coming two or three 
times from the same party ? 

Answer. The same letter "? I do not know that I exactly understand 
that question. Does it mean the same letter coming two or three times 
from the same party and then sent back ? 

Question. Ko ; a person repeating his letter, sending the same letter 
two or three times. 

Answer. They are all filed together. 



424 

Qaestiou. Are not letters received sometimes simply pigeon-bolefl, 
after being indorsed and catalogued ? 

Answer. After being indorsed and catalogued ? You mean entered ? 

Question. Entered on some index-book ? 

Answer. They are put on file. 

Question. May not the untiled letters you referred to have been 
withdrawn from their regular tiles for temporary reference ? 

Answer. Which letters f 

Question. That bundle; you had samples showing some letters had 
not been entered ? 

Answer. They may have been, and for that reason they may have 
been overlooked and not entered. These are not entered at all. It is 
possible that they may have been placed with other pa^iers, and in that 
way have been overlooked. 

Question. In fact, did you expect to find General Howard's record as 
well kept as those in the Adjutant-General's Office here ? 

Answer. I may say that I did. The impression I gained at the time I 
visited the Bureau to arrange with General Howard for the delivery of the 
records was that they were all in good condition ; no intimation was 
given to me that any of the work was behindhand. I think after the 
interview when General Howard and myself rode into the city in the 
same carriage, he mentioned something in regard to promises to certain 
schools; but with that exception I have no recollection of his mentioning 
with regard to the other records or their condition. 

Question. How were those records as compared with the records of 
" discontinued military divisions and departments ? " 

Answer. I have not personally examined the discontinued records of 
military divisions and departments, but the general idea I have gained, 
through obtaining information from them, is that they did not compare 
favorably. 

Question. That is, the freedmeu's were inferior to those? 

Answer. They were inferior ; yes, sir. 

Question. Did you or do you consider it the province or duty of the 
Adjutant General's Department, or any x)art of it, to overhaul and in- 
vestigate charges and allegations concerning the accounts of the late 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands m any matter other than those stated in the act of June 10, 1872? 

Answer. I view that it is the province of the Adjutant-General's Office, 
under the authority conveyed by this act in words, " the same to be car- 
ried into effect by the Secretary of War," to look into matters other than 
those named in this act. I will add to that, that uuder the direction of 
the Secretary of War, based on that act, he charges the office with cer- 
tain duties. So far as the Adjutant-General's Office was concerned, those 
duties look to the winding up of the business, and closing up everything 
connected Avith it, so that it will present a clear and permanent record 
of all the transactions. To do that it may be necessary to look into 
these allegations — the allegations referred to in the question. 

Question. Was not there another letter from the Secretary of War to 
General Garfield referring to the discontinuance of the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, &c., in addition to the letters you have read"? 

Answer. None that I know of. 

Question. In theexamination that followed the receipt of Shaw's letter, 
was his statement regarding the payment of teachers found to be true ? 

Answer. Thp developments made by that investigation are connected 
Avith the vouchers for schools and asylums, and I do not know that the 
matter of teachers entered into them at all. 



425 

Question. What rent is now paid for buildings or rooms in Washing- 
ton to conduct this branch of the Adjutant-General's Oftice ? 

Ans;yer. The amount of rent paid, I believe, is $1,800 per year for one 
building. 

[Examination closed.] 

The Judge- Advocate. I have no more witnesses for the affirmative 
of this case. The only matters yet to be presented are the papers 
which I ha^^e already offered from the files of the War Department, and 
the question as to the receipt of which in evidence was postponed by 
the court. I will offer them again at the next meeting of the court, and 
it can then be decided whether it will admit them or not. 

The Accused. If the court ])lease, General Balloch was called upon 
during his examination here by the court to furnish certain information. 
He has [)repared that information, and has been in attendance here to 
present it. We do not propose to call him at all. The court can have 
it or not, as it desires ; I simply call the matter to the attention of the 
court. 

The President. We want that statement. 

The Accused, (through his counsel.) Neither Mr. Ketchura nor my- 
self can be here on Monday, but if the court wish to recall General 
Balloch and Major Brown to furnish the information which they were 
requested to prepare, it can do so, and on Tuesday we will be ready to 
commence with our testimony proper. 

The President. That, then, will be the understanding. We merely 
want to supplement certain documents by explanations of those docu- 
ments which General Balloch and Major Brown can furnish. I do not 
know that it could properly be considered as part of the defense. 

On motion, the court then, at 4.20 ]). m., adjourned until Monday, the 
27th of April, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



THIRTY-FOURTH DAY. 

CouET OF Inquiry Rooms, 1816 F Street, 

Washington^ i). C, Monday, April 27 — 11 a. m. 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U, S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. X. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, tl. S. A. ; and, 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate ; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused. 



426 

Albert E. Cochran, the official reporter of the court, having returned 
resumed his duties as reporter. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Friday, April 24, were read and 
approved. 

Andrew Cauldwell, a witness, was present, and having heard his 
testimony given on Friday last read, pronounced it to be correct as 
recorded. 

Upon the conclusion of the reading of his testimony- 
Mr. Caldwell said : I desire to state that since giving my testimony 
on that day, the account-current and vouchers that I said had not been 
received were received at the Third Auditor's O^ce, tli is morning, ac- 
couuting for that twenty-two hundred and odd dollars, with interest, 
rendered by General Balloch. 

There being no objection, the w itness was then further examined as 
follows : 

By the Judge Advocate : 

Question. When did you say those vouchers and account-current 
were rendered ? 

Answer. They were received this morning. 

Question. Have you got them with you? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. By whom is the abstract of disbursements of that account 
of moneys received from investment of bounty-funds in new 5 per cent, 
bonds certified ? 

Answer. George W. Balloch, brevet brigadier-general, and chief 
disbursing officer of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lauds, and approved by Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner. 

Question. Are these the originals that you have in your hand "? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, I will introduce 
certified copies of this supplementary account-current with the vouchers. 

The papers w^ere received and considered as read, (copies are at- 
tached to the record, marked Exhibit F^,) there being no objection on 
the part of the accused. 

Question. This explanation of some of these vouchers which appears 
to accompany these papers — by whom was it rendered ? 

Answer. General Balloch. It is in ex^jlauation of one particular 
voucher only. 

By the Court : 

Question. These fall under the Freedmen's Bureau fund generally, 
where General Howard's approval is necessary and conclusive, is it not, 
by law ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Has that account been audited 1 

Answer. No, sir. 

[The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded.] 

No cross-examination. 

Major Thomas M. Vincent, the witness last examined on Friday, the 
24th instant, was present, and after having heard his testimony read, 
said : I desire to say that where I answered the question as to whether 
it; was a matter for the accounting officers of the Treasury, rather than 
the War Department, as a question addressed in reference to the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury, I desire to add, "their action conforming to 
the laws," so that it shall read ; "addressed to the accounting officers of 
the Treasury, their action conforming to the laws." 



427 

I woald like to refer to my answer to the question relative to Mr. 
Wood. I wish to add that I have had no comiunuicatiou with Mr. Wood, 
directly or indirectly 5 my action in the matter has been guided by my 
official obligations only. I had not even seen nor read the report of 
the investigation in Congress, under a resolution oftered by th^ Hon. Mr. 
Wood, until some time subsequent to my letter of February 28, 1873, in 
reply to a communication from General Howard. I refer to the con- 
gressional action which was had under a previous resolution ot Mr. 
Wood's, and is embraced in report No. 121 ; 1 think that is the number. 

By the Court : 

Question. You promised to bring a letter from the Secretary of War? 

Answer. I called Major Gardner's attention to it, and he said he had 
seen it ; I have never seen it yet. 

The Accused. It ^vonld be well to put that in evidence. 

The Judge-Advocate said: If the court please, on the last meeting, 
the witness, Major Vincent, brought a package of papers from the Ad- 
jutant-General's Office, on the subject of communications between the 
Secretary of War and Congress, in reference to the discontinuance of 
the Bureau. Among them he read a letter from the Secretary of War 
to Mr. Gartield, chairman of the Conmiittee on Appropriations. I was 
not aware that there were two letters. I was not at that moment i^aying- 
attention, and I supposed it was a letter I had seen, and made arrange- 
ments to have brought here. Afterward, however, I ascertained that 
the letter had not been read, and I have brought a copy this morning of 
the second communication, one later than the one that was read last 
Friday, from the Secretary of War to Mr. Garfield. General Howard 
also spoke to me on the subject, and when I came to look at my exhib- 
its and arrange them, I saw that the letter which has been read was not 
the one I had intended to bring. 

[The letter was here read as follows :] 

War Department, 
Washington City, May 22, 1872. 

Sir : I have the honor to request your attentiou to that part of the bill (H. E. 2705) 
inakiug appropriations for sundry civil expenses for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1873, which relates to the Freedmen's Bureau. 

The paragraph in CLuestion last appropriates $100,000 for collection and payment of 
claims, salaries of employes, and other items, and then provides, " That the Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands be discontinued from and after June 30, 
1872, and that all agents, clerks, and other employes then ou duty shall be discharged, 
except such as may be retained by the Secretary of War for the purposes of this pro- 
viso." 

The purposes of this proviso seem to me to be clearly the discontinuance of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, as such, by the 30th of June ; and the retention of clerks and em- 
ployes alluded to in the proviso is for the purpose of winding up its affairs by the Sec- 
retary of War. But then follows this clause : "And all acts and parts of acts pertain- 
ing to the collection and payment of bounties or other moneys due to colored soldiers, 
sailors, marines, or their heirs, shall remain in force until otherwise ordered by Con- 
gress, the same to be carried into effect by the Secretary of War, who may employ such 
clerical force as may be necessary for the purpose." , 

Taking the two parts of this proviso together, it would appear that the intention of 
the bill is, first, to wind up the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau as such, and, second, 
to transfer its duties in carrying out the laws of Congress in regard to bounties of col- 
ored soldiers, &c., to the Secretary of War, and for this jiurpose permitting him to use 
the $100,000 appropriated. 

But there is a second proviso, as follows, "And provided further, TJiat the present Com- 
missioner of the Bureau of Freedmen, Refugees and Abandoned Lands shall be granted, 
under the direction of the Secretary of War, such period after June 30, 1872, as may be 
necessary to enable him to settle all legal claims against said Bureau, and to perfect the 
records of the same, except such as may be transferred hereb" , and for the purposes of 
this proviso the sum of $75,000 is hereby appropriated." 



428 

This proviso still continues the present Commissioner of the Bureau for an \ndefinUe 
period, for the purpose of settling claims against the Bureau and perfecting its records, 
and for this purpose $75,000 is appropriated. 

If it is the desire of Congress to transfer to the Secretary of War the duties now 
performed by the Freedmen's Bureau, I am of the belief that that desire would be 
more effectually carried out by relieving the present Commissioner from its charge al- 
together, and placing the whole matter, without reserve, iu the hands of the Secretary 
of War. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of JFar. 
Hon. J. A. Garfield, 

Chairman Committee on Apiyropriaiions, House of Representatives. 

By the Court : 

Question. Is the J. W. Sliaw wliose letter you liave read in evidence, 
tlie Lieut. J. W. Shaw, Twentv-flfth Infantry, who was dismissed the 
Army in 1868 ? 

Answer. I cannot say that he is. As I stated previously, I had never 
seen him prior, and have never seen him since. 

The Accused said : He is a clerk in the Second Auditor's Office 
now. 

By the Court : 

Question. Did you make any inquiries as to J. W. Shaw's antecedents 
and history before you took action on his letter? 

Answer. I did not. 

Question. Has not an additional case of erroneous payment by Cap- 
tain McMilhin been discovered within a few da3^s ? 

Answer. An additional case was reported to me on last Saturday. 

Question. Have you examined the records of the Freedmen's Bureau 
to ascertain their condition ; and, if so, in what condition did yoit find 
them 'i 

Answer. I believe that is covered in my previous testimony. 

Question. Were officers or clerks sent from the War Department to 
re-examine and restate the accounts of Generals Howard and Balloch, 
or Major Brown; and, if so, by whose order? Please explain all you 
know about this matter. 

[Objected to by a member of the court.] 

The court was cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused being present, the judge-advocate announced, as the 
decision of the court, that the question would not be put. 

Question. Since you have been in general charge of the records and 
business of the late Freedmen's Bureau, have you given GeneralHoward 
every facility in your power to settle the affairs of the Bureau and to 
explain all matters which he has been called on to explain either by the 
War Department or the Treasury Department ? 

Answer, After the transfer of the Bureau, and when the matter of 
missing records was under consideration. General Howard had full 
access and was authorized to go freely to the Bureau, in order to be 
facilitated in securing and restoring missing records. I have no recol- 
lection that any obstacle was thrown in the way of his going freely into 
the records of the Bureau, until there had been certain developments 
in regard to the financdal transactions. After these developments, the 
material facts which would be necessary to him seemed to be embraced 
in the accounts of the disbursing officers, and as certain questions luid 
arisen between the War Department through the Adjutant-General's 
Office and himself, the view taken was, that the records slioukl be held 
for the purpose of "verification," and under that view access by him to 



429 

the records was denied, unless be would make application for what 
seemed necessary to him by letter. The action of the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's OiSce rested on a principle embraced in an opinion of the Attor- 
ney-General, which was given after the transfer of the records of the 
Provost-Marshal-General's Bureau to tlie War Department, and when 
information was called for by certain })ersons outside. The Secretary 
of War hesitated to give it under the view that the records were " con- 
fidential" and for " veritication," &c. He consulted the Attorney-General, 
who said in substance that the records were the confidential archives 
of the Government, and that the Secretary of War was sole judge as to 
who should consult them. There was some correspondence within com- 
paratively a recent date, and the Adjutant-General addressed a letter 
to General Howard, stating that such information as might be necessary 
to him would be furnished upon his written application for it, stating 
what was necessary. 

By the Accused : 
Question. Was the Provost-Marshal-General included 1 
Answer. The Provost-Marshal-General was not included. 
Examination closed. 

The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 
The judge- advocate said he had no further witnesses. 

Geo. W. Balloch was then recalled by order of the court, and fur- 
ther examined as follows : 

By the Court : 

Question. Have you prepared the statement asked for by the court 
about the 174 cases of colored claimants, &e. ? 

Answer. I have, according to the list given me ; there are 172 cases. 

Question. Is it the same list that is in evidence ? 

Answer. I presume so ; it \> as sent to nie by the court. 

Question. That statement is prepared by yourself and you now sub- 
mit it, do you ? 

Answer. Yes, sir; I find in each of those cases I received a proper 
voucher, and that I either sent the money separately or in bulk with 
other checks to pay these claimants, and that none of it has ever been 
returned to me; and I have "recapitulated" it as you requested, show- 
ing the various stations at which it was paid. 

Question. That is put in as a sworn statement? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

(The statement was offered in evidence. A copy is attached to the 
record, marked Exhibit G", there being no objection on the part of the 
accused.) 

Question. Have you prepared any sta>tement concerning the irregular 
bouu.ty-fund I 

Answer. I have rendered an account to General Howard. [Papers 
handed witness.] I have made out an account-current, and have it here 
in my hands. 

Question. Y^ou swear to the correctness of this, do you? 

Answer. Yes, sir, 

[The papers were offered in evidence. Copies are attached to the 
record, and marked Exhibit H^, there being no objections on the part 
of the accused.] 

The Judge-Advocate said: I would respectfully suggest to the 
court that the matters herein inquired upon would seem to be matters 



430 

ratber for the defense than for an investigatiou at this point on the part 
of the court. The entire matter in reference to tliis irre^nhir retained 
bounty-fniid on the state of facts presented on the aftirmative now rests 
with General Howard to show whether or not these funds have been 
propei'ly accounted for. The assumed account-current that the witness 
brinos here with an affidavit attached, I submit is objectionable in not 
being- in the form in which those things usually come before courts of 
record in the way of evidence. If the members of the court should see 
this so-called aftidavit, I think they would perceive that it is not accord- 
ing to the usual forms of evidence to bring in a document in that shape. 
I am aware that General Howard has said that he does not intend to 
call General Balloch in these matters. Whether he means to throw ou 
the court that responsibility, I do uot know; but I have presented in 
the aflirmative a certain state of facts, so far as the testimony goes, to 
be evidence after the accused has endeavored to rebut it ; and such 
being the case, 1 submit to the court the proi)riety of not calling Gen- 
eral Balloch on these matters, allowing the accused to develop his de- 
fense;' because it prevents me from the usual course of a cross-exami- 
nation, &c., of a witness, which, of course, I cannot with propriety 
undertake where he is produced by the court. 

The President of the Court said : At the time Mr. Balloch testified, 
the members of the court naturally inquired if he could explain the 174 
cases and his connection therewith, and also whether he could render 
an account-current of the irregular bounty-fund, which seemed to have 
been evidence rejected by the Treasury Department heretofore. He 
answered he could and would do so, and I understand he has now done 
that which he promised at the time he gave his evidence, and nothing 
more. 

The Judge- Advocate. On looking at this so called account-current, 
which he renders to General Howard, I see here a statement of the 
amount disbursed, " as per affidavit attached." Then along affidavit is 
attached. Now, I resi^ectfully submit that is a matter for the defense. 

The Accused said: The court, through its president, has stated just 
what 1 was going to state, and I wish to say that this matter is merely 
what has been called for. I had really intended to put this affidavit in 
any way iii my defense, but not by this witness. But as it was called for 
by the court, it is in my hands, and you are perfectly welcome to it. 

The President of the OouiJt. I am sure that is my understanding 
of it. General Balloch was called today, by direction of the court, ac- 
cording to an understanding had by the court last Friday, simply to 
supplement his former testimony by certain dcouments which he prom- 
ised at the time. He has now done so, as I understand. The paper will 
be appended, and will stand for what it is worth, not as proving the 
correctness or otherwise of the account, but simply as an account ren- 
dered, to comply with the wishes of the court to that extent. 

The judge-advocate may now, if he chooses, cross-examine the wit- 
ness as though he had been introduced on the jiart of the defense. 

The Accused said : However, not as a witness brought by the de- 
fense. We do not object to any question whatever ; but not as a wit- 
ness brought by ourselves. 

The President of the Court : In like manner as though he had 
been, is my language. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 
Question. You have just said in your testimony that you have re- 
ceived a proper voucher in 172 cases, How do you know that fact ? 



431 

Answer. I have been tlirongh my duplicates and seen every voncher. 

Question. From whom are those vouchers ? 

Answer. I want to qualify my statement. xYll of the 172 cases were 
not paid by me. I mean all those I paid. The "recapitulation'' 1 gave 
shows how mauy were paid by me. I mean such of those as purport to 
have been i^aid by me. 

Question. In person? 

Answer. Through me as chief disbursing officer. 

Question. What do you mean when you say "those that were paid 
by me I " 

Answer. I mean those for which I received credit at the Treasury. 

Question. And for which you received vouchers back ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Although the payments may have been made by subagents? 

Answer. Subagents of the Bureau. 

Question. How do you know then that those were proper vouchers 
when you are speaking only from what is not within your personal 
knowledge ? 

Answer. I mean they are properly signed and properly witnessed. 

Question. How do yon know" that they are properly signed? 

Answer. Well, I know that they are signed either by the person him- 
self, or by something pnrporting to be the name of the person, or his 
mark, and witnessed. That is what I mean by a proper voucher. 

Question. Then yon do not mean in every instance those vouchers 
were actnally signed by the identical i)arties to whom the money was 
issued f 

Answer. ISTo, sir ; I do not. 

Question. You say you sent the money in souie of these cases in bulk ; 
how do yon know that fact ? 

Answer. Because I have examined my check-books and cash-books I 
kept with these officers to ascertain the fact. 

Question. Was that the only record the office had by which to trace 
these ! 

Answer. The other records are in the letter-press books which are 
in the hands of the War Department. I had nothing else by which I 
could trace a case. 

Question. This account-current which you have offered here — w^heu 
was it rendered to General Howard "I 

Answer. I made it up a few days ago. 

Question. Have you ever rendered such an account to the Treasury ? 

Answer. Ko, sir. 

Question.' You say in your affidavit accompanying that, that you paid 
to clainmnts out of said fund the sum of .$110,707.85. Do you mean to 
say that you paid that in person i 

Answer. If you will read that affidavit you will see. 

Question. You say that the above payments were made either on 
proper vouchers, by yourself, or through regular agents of said Bureau. 
Do you mean that those vouchers staud on the same basis with reference 
to their propriety as the vouchers in the one hundred and seventy-two 
cases to which you have just testified? 

Answer. I do. 

Question. Who told you to take away the vouchers already filed in 
the Treasury ? 

Answer. I have testified to that in my regular examiimtion by your- 
self. 



432 

Question. Yes, but now, with tlie permission ot tlie court, you are on 
cross-examination. 

Auswer. It was tlie chief of one of the divisions of the Second Audit- 
or's Office, but I do not remember his name. 

Question. Is he there now f 

Auswer. I could not tell you. 

Questiou. Would you be able to ascertain if you went to the Treasury- 
Department ? 

Answer. I do not know that I could ; possibly the receipt I gave him 
might show ; his initials might be on it, or something. 

Question. Do yon recollect what sort of a looking man he was ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I do not. 

Question. AVould any officials in the War Department, in reference to 
those one hundred and seventy-two cases, l>e able by the records either 
to trace whether a payment had been made or not, especiall^^ where you 
sent money in bulk ? 

Answer. The "latter-press books" would show when the money was 
sent, and the bounty-register would show when the payment Avas per- 
fected. 

Question. Provided the bounty-register was correct ? 

Answer. Well, I have no reason to doubt that it is correct, so far as 
the dates are concerned. 

Question. Did that contain the name of the agent to whom the money 
was sent °? 

Answer. No, sir; the letter-press books show to whom the money 
was sent. 

Question, Money being sent in bulk, that way, as shown by the letter- 
press books that we have had in e\ idence here, how can they tell in the 
War Department, unless they had a copy of the respective lists I 

Answer. The lists are always copied in the letter-press books. 

Question. In connection with the letters"? 

Answer. In connection with the letters. 

[Cross-examination ended.] 

The Witness then said: In the Commissioner's report for 1865, the 
amoimt of this retained bounty-limd is reported as $115,235.81. There 
has been some inquiry why I only reported one hundred and twelve 
thousand and some odd dollars — I do not remember the dollars. I wish 
to explain how that occurred. It was a clerical error. Mr. Duren, my 
book-keeper, made the error by charging me with more money than I 
received. Hecharged meashavingreceived from Colonel Brown, assistant 
commissioner, for Virginia, $81,331.81. That was right. He charged 
me as having received from Capt. Horace James, the assistant quarter- 
master for tiie State of North Carolina, $29,075.00. That was not right. 
That was the whole amount of the rolls that Captain James sent me. 
But, as I testified in iny examination, Captain James had authority and 
did expeiul $7,491.43; so my chief clerk actually charged that amount 
that I did not receive. He also charged me interest $18.25 ; which was 
right. He charged me that amount of money more than I actually re- 
ceived, audi had to carry it in the reports until I could regulate it next 
year. 

By the Court : 

Question. Has the $16,652.25 duplicate voucher put in by you, noted 
on page 8 of Exhibit B, part 2, and disallowed, been replaced by other 
vouchers, covering wholly, or m part, these amounts which have since 
been audited and settled by the accounting officers of the Treasury ! 

Auswer. It has not. I am at work as diligently as I can, to hunt 



433 

that matter up. The gentleman who was my book-keeper all through 
the time I was in the Bureau, Mr. Duren, is at present at Hot Springs, 
Arkansas, sick, and he will not be. at home for two or three weeks yet ; 
and I beg to assure you, gentlemen, I am not inditferentto that voucher, 
and, as I testified under oath before, I wish to reiterate the fact, that I 
propose to straighten that matter up ; but it will take me, of course, 
some little time to do it. I have seen the accounting officers of the 
Treasury about it, and am going to work to "fix it up," to use a familiar 
expression. 

By the PREsroENT of the Court : 

Question. That is, to procure vouchers satisfactory to the Treasury, 
• or pay the balance, if necessary ! 

Answer. I shall either do one thing or the other. 1 shall either pro- 
duce satisfactory vouchers or I shall pay the money ; at least I shall 
settle it.' 

Question. You consider yourself liable for the money? 

Answer. I consider I am responsible to the Treasury, and I propose 
to settle it as any disbursing officer would do under similar circum- 
stances. 

By the Judge-x\dvocate, (with permission of the court:) 

Question. Have you ever rendered an account-curreiiit with vouchers 
for the interest on that two hundred and fifty thousand dollar bond 
transaction previous to this morning ! If so, please state to whom, and 
about when. 

Answer. I never rendered any to the Treasury Department ; I ren- 
dered one to General Howard on the day after I was relieved, 12th of 
October, 1871 — an account-current with vouchers. 

Question. Do you recollect whether or not it was a duplicate of this 
you have rendered to the Treasury ? 

Answer. A duplicate of it with one exception ; in the account I pre- 
viously rendered, I got in the name of one claimant that ought not to 
go in, and, as I explain on the vouchers to-day, I have taken that out 
and substituted two others which should go in. 

Question That account-current that you rendered to General Howard 
with vouchers — was it for filing with his papers, or was it for transmis- 
sion ? 

Answer. Well, I do not know ; I rendered him an account-current 
and vouchers for that expenditure. 

Question. The nineteen thousand and odd dollars? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; my impression is that the Secretary of War called 
on General Howard to render to him an account of this transaction ; I 
am quite. sure be did. 

Q. Have you any knowledge on the sulyect, whether or not such an 
account was rendered ? 

Answer. I did not render it to the Secretary of War; I am quite 
sure he called on General Howard to render it to him. 

Question. Were you not required to render this account to the 
Treasury ? 

Answer. I was ; I got a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury on 
the 31st of March, 1871, directing me to render that account. 

Question. Did you not know previous to that you were to render it 
to the Treasury"? 

Answer. I did not. I got this order on the 31st of March. I should 
have rendered it at once, but I had to go into some correspondence to 
perfect the evidence, so that there should be no doubt about it. 
28 H fe 



434 

J. M. Brown was then recalled by ordci' of the court, and examined 
as follows : 

By tbe Court : 

Question. Your letter was received and submitted to the court, and 
tlie court have agreed that you might come to-day and make such 
explanation concerning your testiinonj^ as you pleased. 

Answer. I wanted to speak particularly In regard to those two vouch- 
ers included in the 174 cases, which I bad no opportunity to do before, 
as I knew nothing of them until I read of it in the newspapers. There- 
fore I made a memorandum, which I would like to refer to, because it 
will save recapitulation. It is in reference to the vouchers of Reason 
Burbridge and Harriet A. Walker, two of the 174 cases. In neither of 
these cases have I ever received notice of any complaint of non-payment, 
though I have often visited the Freedmen's branch of the Adjutant- 
General's Office iind requested to be informed of any complaint of non- 
payment in which I was interested, with a view of giving proper expla- 
nation. This has been accorded me, and I have always promptly 
responded. In the Keason Burbridge case, as appears from the records 
shown me by one of Mr. Moody's clerks in March last, it was paid by my 
check 305, April 1*J, 1874, on United States Treasury at Washington, to 
the order of Keasgn Burbridge, and a certified copy, with Burbridge's 
indorsement thereon, I here produce, certified by the assistant treas- 
urer of the United States, the letter of complaint of Tyler and Garri- 
son, attorneys of Eeason Burbridge, forwarded from tbe freedmen's 
branch to the Second Auditor, in which the only reference to Eeason 
Burbridge is asking if he has to go to Lexington to get his money. A 
certified copy of that letter to the Second Auditor I here produce. 

By the Accused : 

Question. That is a complaint, is it not ? 

Answer. That is the complaint. Also my letter of April 24th, to the 
Second Auditor, asking if there was any other communication or com- 
plaint in his office in reference to the non-payment of Reason Burbridge 
and his indorsement thereon that there are no other letters. 

The President of the court said: There is no necessity of encumber- 
ing tbe record with another letter. You have stated it before. 

Answer. AVell, I thought I would let the court see. I claim there is 
no complaint in the Second Auditor's Oflice that that man never received 
his money ; that is simply asking him whether be has to go to Lexing- 
ton to get bis pay — asking for information. 

In reference to the Harriet A. Walker case, General Howard trans- 
ferred to me February 17, 1872, $24,004,84 among other moneys in the 
bands of Colonel Seely, as disbursing ofilcer at Saint Louis, and also 
$8,224.13 in tbe bands of tbe disbursing agent, Overly, at Louisville, 
Ky. It seemed to me to be unnecessary to have so much money on 
hand. I directed Seely, at Saint Louis, to return to me $20,000, and 
Overly, at Louisville, to return $5,000. This was done; and Agent 
Overly sent me a check for five thousand dollars on the United States 
depository at Louisville, which I at once forwarded as per receipt of 
the United States depository, No. C07, which I here produce. [Witness 
produces paper.] There is the receipt for tbe deposit of that check. I 
traced the funds, $5,000, into the hands of my successor by a statement 
of my account in the United States depository at Louisville, and my 
check-book which I have here. 

Question by tbe Court. To whom do you refer as your successor ? 

Ans^^■er. I refer to Major McMillan particularly. With regard to 



435 

this Harriet A. Walker case, I declare, positively, 1 never received aiiy 
notice, either verbal or written, from any person whatever, and the first 
intimation from any source that there was any question as to the proper 
payment in this instance was, reading John S. Moody's testimony in one 
of the daily papers a day or two since. I can swear that all tlie bounty 
and other funds in my hands have been accounted for by me. If that 
error has occurred in the Harriet A. Walker case, I. am solely responsi- 
ble, as General Howard was at this time under the orders of the Interior 
Department, in Arizona. I am prepared to promptly explain this and all 
errors and claims of non-payment. But I have had no notice, which, 
under the universal custom of the accounting-otticers of the Treasury 
Department, is an unquestioned right of a disbursing ofHcer, to which 
I am entitled. The point is simply this : 1 have had no notice, and I 
am entitled to it, a notice of some kind. 

By the Court : 

Question. And you allege these parties got their money ? 

Answer. To the best of my knowledge and belief they got their 
juoney. I did not pay it into their hands, and it is not like a positive 
knowledge, but on that check I think I can swear positively that Keasou 
Burbridge got his money. That is one of those 174 cases, and, as far as 
I can find out, there is no evidence to the contrary in the Second 
Auditor's Office, and there is no complaint to the contrary. 

Question. Do you know whether that case has gone to the Attorne}"- 
General for prosecution ? 

Answer. I don't know. If it is one of the 171 cases I presume it has. 

Cross-exa m i nation. 

By the Judge- Advocate: 

(Question. When you turned over to Captain JNIcMillan that 85,000 
which appears to have been deposited with the designated depository 
of the United States, did you give him a list of the claimants for whom 
that money was due ? 

Answer. No, sir. That was part I turned over to him in hulk — part 
of the $726,000, as I understand it. 

Question. Then, would the disbursing officer who relieved you. Cap- 
tain McMillan, from the moneys that you turned over to him and the 
records, have been able to ascertain that all the claimants had not been 
paid ? 

Answer. I do not know whether he would or not. I don't know any- 
thing about it, because I have never seen the records ; never had an 
opportunity of seeing them. If I had had o])portunity I could have 
testified intelligently. 

[The examination of witness here ended. | 

The Judge-Advocate said: If the court please, I have the two sets 
of official papers to submit to the court, under seal of the War Depart- 
ment, and presented yesterday by Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent 
while testifying. One is on the subject of the $331,000 bond transaction, 
and the other is on the subject of the $250,000 bond transaction. Of the 
$331,000 bond transaction the last letter from the files is of date Febru- 
ary 13 last past, from General Howard, forwarding the Third Auditor's 
reply to the Secretary of War. I have gone over this with some care, 
and I think, as containing the history of j-hese transactions, that they 
are material and I wish to present them. The first letter is from the 
Adjutant-General to General Howard, of date January 17, 1871, refer- 



436 

riu]2C to the letter of Januaiy 5, part secoud Exhibit B, and statiug that 
the $19,446.51 had not been takeu up ou the refugees and freedmen's 
fund, and directing an accounting. The transactions ended before the 
act organizing this court. The first Is a letter from the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral to General Howard, date January 17, and is as follows : 

[The Judge-Advocate then read these several documents produced 
by Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent, as follows :] 

War Departjiext, Adjctaxt-Gexeral's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 17, 1874. 
General: Referring to the cominnnication of George "\V. Balloch, late disbursing 
officer, dated January 3, ld74, forwarded by you to the Secretary of War January 5, 
1874, I have the honor to inform you that the net amount of interest stated to have 
accrued on the " currency sixes," $19,446.!J7, was not takeu up on the " refugees andfreed- 
juen's fnnd" and accounted for under act of June 15, 1866. The Secretary of War, there- 
fore, directs you to furnish, at your earliest convenience, a statement, in detail, of the 
expenditures, together with the original vouchers received therefor. A list of the claim- 
ants, with rank, regiment, company, &c., who were re-imbursed " for double iiayment 
of bouuties," is also required. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

A dju tan t-G eneral. 

General 0. 0. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau licfufjees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands, 

Washiuijion, D. C. 

The Judge- Advocate then read the following : 

War Department, 
Washington City, January 31, 1874. 
General: Your attention is respectfully invited to letter addressed to you under 
date of the 17th instant, requesting original vouchers covering expenditures made 
from the amount ($19,446.57) realized from interest on certain bonds, together with a 
list of the claimants, with rank, regiment, and company, who were re-imhui'sed there- 
from "for double i>aymeut of bounties." Compliance therewith is desired at the ear- 
liest practicable date. 

Very respectfullj', your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
Brig. Gen. 0. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau Ilefugees, Frcedmen, 

and Abandoned Lands, Washington , D. C. 

The following is a copy of General Howard's indorsement on the foregoing letter, 
referring it to late Disbursing Officer Balloch ; also, copy of that officer's indorsement, 
returning the communication to General Howard, and that of the latter transmitting 
the same to this Department. 

[First indorsement.] 

Washington, February 4, 1874. 
Respectfully referred to General Geo. W. Balloch, late disbursing officer, &c., and at- 
tention called to communication from Adjutant-General of January 17th, as well as 
the within. I hope the information will be furnished at as early date as possible. 

O. O. HOWARD. 
Brigadiir-Gcneral, U. S. A. 

[Second indorsement.] 

Washington, February 6, 1874. 
Respectfully returned to General O. O. Howard. As the Adjutant-General, in his letter 
of January 17th, imputes to me a direct falsehood, I must decline to make any further 
communication on the subject. I inclose, however, a list of claimants who were " re- 
imbursed for double payments of bounties" as you request. 

G. W. BALLOCH. 



437 

[Third indorsement.] 

Washington, February 9, 1874. 
Respectfully forwarded to the honorable Secretary of War, and attention invited to 
the indorsement of General Geo. W. Balloch. Having no other source from vrhich to ob- 
tain the information requested, I inclose the list of claimants, and await further instruc- 
tions. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, U. S. A. 

The Judge-Advocate said: The list referred to by Brigadier-General 
Howard, and which accompanies his letter just read, is as follows : 

Lht of cJaimants ivlio were re-imbiirsed for double payment of bouniies, out ofilie iuierest col- 
lected on " currency sixes," by George W. Balloch, chief disbursing-officer B. 1{., F. and 
A.L. 



Xame.s. 




g 
P. 

a 

o 


Regiment. 


Amount 
paid. 






H 
I> 
E 
A 
G 
B 
A 


.36thir.S.C.T... 
3d H. A 


$86 50 


Samuel Griffin, ^285.50, less 1116. 62 recovered 




168 88 






35tliU.S.C. T... 
23dU. S.C.T.... 
48thU.S.C.T... 

6th H. A 

4thU.S.C.T.... 


228 00 






204 80 






264 38 






286 00 


Isaac AV. Watkins 




100 00 








Total 


1, 338 56 













Washington, D. C, February 4, 1874. 
Sir: Your letter of January 31 is just received, (February 4.) In answer permit me 
to say that the communication of tlie 17th ultimo received by me the 21st could not 
be answered from data in my possession. A careful copy was therefore forwarded to 
General Geo. W. Balloch, with request that " he furnish the information called for." 
No replj"^ has yet been received from him. I will forward to him a copy of your com- 
munication, just received, hoping that he may afford you the information you desire. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

0. 0. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General , U. S. A. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 



War Department, 
Washington City, February 11, 1874. 
General: Referring to your indorsement of the 9th instant, inviting attention to 
one from late Disbursing Officer George W. Balloch, declining " to make any further 
communication on the subject" of the net amount of certain interest referred to in the 
communication from the Adjutant-General, by my order of the 17th ultimo, and 
wherein the expenditures, in detail, original vouchers, &.c., were called for, I again 
refer to that communication, and direct that the information be furnished by you at a 
date not later than the 14th instant. The fact of your individual responsibility and 
accountability being involved should cause you to call in person] upon the late dis- 
bursing officer, thus to demand of him the information required. 

If the interest under consideration has been accounted for, it will be an easy matter 
to comply with the order hereby conveyed. If it has not been accounted for, I hereby 
direct that the amount be at once deposited with the Treasurer of the United States. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
Genei'al O. 0. Howard, 

Cnited States Army, late Commissioner Bureau of 

Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, Washington, I). C. 



438 

Wasiiixgton, D. C, Fi-hfuary 12, la74. 
SiiJ : I have tlie honor to ackuowleflge the receipt of your communication of the 11th 
instant, and in answer thereto beg leave to state that I have no vouchers in my pos- 
session rehiting to the subject-matter of yonr letter, and that the same are, or should 
be, in the possession of the Third Auditor of the Treasury, as filed by General Balloch, 
in settlement of his accounts. 

I state, moreover, that in obedience to your order, contained in your communication 
referred to above, I have this day, in company with my aids, Lieutenants Sladeu and 
Wilkinson, called upon General Balloch, and have requested him to read your com- 
runuication, which he did read ; and in pursuance thereof I deiuanded of him the in- 
formation required in your communication, and he answered, " I reiterate what I have 
said before in writing : that I have accounted for the money to the Treasury, and 
decline to give further information at this time." 

Regretting, sir, that I have been unable to procure the information you desire from 
General Balloch, over whom, as you are aware, I have no authority, military or other- 
wise, 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O HOWARD, 
Brigadkr-dtneial, U. S. A. 
Hon. W. W. Belkxap, 

SSecreiarij of If'ar. 



Tkeasuky Dp:pai{TMENT. 
Thikd Auditor's Office, 
Washington, D. C, February 12, 1874. 
Sii: : In reply to yours of this date, asking to be informed whether Brig. Gen. G. W. 
Balloch, late disbursing ofticer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
" has taken up and accounted for $19,446.57 realized from interest on certain bonds," I 
have the honor to inform you that the amount above referred to was taken up and 
accounted for by that officer upon accounts rendered to this Office, and that the same 
was disbursed upon vouchers approved by you, and audited and allowed hj the ac- 
counting*officers of the Treasury Department. 
Very respectfully, 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 
To Brig. Gen. 0. O. Howahd, 

United States Army, li'italiiuylou, D. V. 

A true copy : 

J. A. SLADEN, 

Aide-de-Canq). 

Indorsement on the foregoing : 

Washingtox, D. C, February 1.3, 1H74. 
Respectfully forwai'ded as additional, in answer to the letter of the Secretary of 
War of the 11th instant. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brifjadier-Gcneral, U. S. A. 

The Judge-Advocate then said : What has just been read by me com- 
prises the documents on tlie subject of the niueteen-thousand-dollar 
item which I desire to introduce in evidence. I have now some on the 
subject of the $250,000-bond transaction ; the first is from the Secretary 
of the Treasury, dated October 4, 1871, inclosing the letter of the Second 
Auditor to the Secretary of War, as follows : 

[B. — 2 inclosures.] 

TitEAsuKY Depaktmext, Office of the Secuetary, 

October 4, 1871. 
Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith a copy of a letter addressed to me by the 
Acting Second Auditor, under date of the 30th of September last, in reference to the 
accounts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands; and also copies of his accounts for the 
months of June, July, and August, of the present year. 



439 

The letter of the Actiu^f Second Auditor states distinctly the transaction which he 
deems to have been irref^ular. 

I learn from General Balloch that the investment in the bonds of the United States 
was with the knowledge and approval of the Treasurer of the United States, and of the 
Second Comptroller of the Treasury. This statement appears to be true, at least so far 
as the Second Comptroller is concerned. 

I have directed the Second Auditor to require General Balloch to make a statement 
of the cost of the bonds referred to, and to render an account of all the interest collected 
thereon ; also to render an account of any payments made to real claimants in cases 
where, by error or fraud, payments had been previously made to persons not entitled 
to the same. 

I have no opinion, at the present time, whether these payments can be allowed or 
not ; but under the circumstances I think it proper that a special and accurate state- 
ment should be obtained of all the transactions referred to in the letter of the Second 
Auditor. 

Very respectfullv, 

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 

Sccretari/. 

Hon. W. W. BELKXAr, 

Sccretarij of War, Jfa^hhiglon, D. C. 

Treasuhy DErART.MKNT, Secoxo Auditor's Office, 

Sq}tembv7- 30, 1871. 

Sir : In accordance with your verbal request, I have the honor to inclose, for your m- 
forniation, coi)ies of the account-current of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief 
disbursing oflicer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, for the 
mouths of June, July, and August, IdTl, and to call your attention to the following 
facts : 

The account-current, of which I inclose a copy, for the month of June is the one 
originally tiled by General Balloch in this office, but those for July and August are 
amended accounts tiled in lieu of the original ones which were withdrawn by him, 
after his attention had been called to certain irregularities in them. 

By the account for July as first filed he claimed to have on deposit with the Treas- 
urer of the United States, on the 31st of that month, the sum of $520,974.07, when, 
upon investigation, it was found that he really had on deposit with the Treasurer bat 
$241,356.61, a diiference between his account and that of the Treasurer of $279,617.46. 

Upon calling his attention to this large discrepancy, he stated in explanation that he 
held in registered bonds of the United States the sum of $200,000, and in coupon bonds 
of the United States the sum of $50,000, the last-named bonds being deposited with 
the National Safe-Deposit Company of Washington, in all the sum of $250,000, face 
value, and estimated by him to be worth in cash the sura of $280,000. 

On inquiry at the Treasury it was found that his statement in regard to holding the 
registered bonds was correct. 

As to the coupon bonds being deposited as stated, I have no information. Upon being 
asked what wag done with the interest received upon the bonds, he stated that it was 
used to make good losses incurred by the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lauds, in erroneous payments made by its agents. After his explanation as 
above given, he was allowed to withdraw his accounts-current for July and August, 
1871, and to substitute in their place the ones of which I inclose copies. The amended 
ones differ only in the item of balance deposited with the Treasurer of the United 
States, which is reduced from $520,974.07 to $240,974.07, and the ditference made up 
by the entry of " bonds on deposit, (cash value,) $280,000." 

The amounts claimed in the accounts-current to be on deposit at other Government 
depositories have not been verified as yet; nor is the amount of checks drawn upon 
the Treasurer of the United States, still outstanding and unpaid, known to this office. 
Their amount would increase to a corresponding extent the indebtedness of General 
Balloch. 

It,is considered by this office that the facts, as stated, show an irregularity in the 
accounts of General Balloch, as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and thej^ are therefore submitted to you for your in- 
formation and such action as you may consider proper. 

I have the honor to be, very resi)ectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. F. HERRING, 

Acting Auditor. 

Hon. George S. Boutwell, 

Secretary of the TreasHnj, 

The Judge- Advocate said : The auiiexed accounts-current are as 
follows : 



440 



5* ~ 



•^-1 



-is; 









Ik 

o 
* a 



»rO CO 

<o ? s 



rf -^ -^ O -V O 
OO -V S'l O T n 

— ' o t- CJ ■v ^^ 

CO o ^ ^ -- 1-- 

O (71 -^ r^ O 00 
r-l 1-1 (NO 



O o 



S3., 
c 9 ™ 
§2 









o o-r 
1-1 3 fc 



w a; s r ■ 












JW 






03 a a 

1-. r; 3 






« tS c3 

*^ 4J 4J 

CO rn a: 



» S (S 
m ffl a 



"ce a m 
a o =^ 

O «;■■" 

;S - ° 
i^«3 



o CO (B « oD a (K.a.2 5 a 



-■e 


.^ 


WS 


b C 


81 


11 


<^ 


H 


K-s 


w 


^! 


fe 


d s 


o 


w-^ 




O S5 





ll 



ct<2 



g^ 


q 


a'^ 


'^ 


ri.^ 


■«; 


= r-, 


O 


'^ a 


- 


» c« 


s 


a » 


c^ 


o q 










>^ >. 






(^ 


a ^ 


•*e 



-ivs fq ^ 



441 



~ Si's 



OD l~ 

to m 



■V QD 'O f- CI r^ o 

Ci -- t^ o to -^ o 

OC -O (- -J 00 m o 

— o r5 -tp ^ o o 
CI x: o r^ o to o 

-f o" rs" t-" x" o" 

^ »-i lO GO 



^ fi 



J3 5.i!!'S =« O 

» K O 3 C ^ 



o a 

2 o 



p* CD © © Qi 

g g "^ " " 

~ 00 -3 -. 

CS cS c3 



„ ^ . ■ a s 
=s 2 S 2 2 

- -* cc ct C3 

BOO 

« y^ § s s ? s 



? o 
.2.3 to 

- --^ g 



= -a ?j£^ S 



? 2 3 a a -2 -" 

— — ■ -I "" s 
■s o :i a °y 9* 

X i? "5 ^ ^ ^ a 



a a s a a. 



Jgg.^^t^t^t'titif^f^iiMr^ 



^ 



to s e 




a O'-e 


dier 
OCH 

ando 




ed so 
ALL 
dAb 


S M'^-S 


o 








^ Sil 




1 §"^ 








N S 




'f^rs e 












ti ^ 




a o 




o e- 




,2 o 





St 



(,t« 

Or- 

■2 o 






442 



■o s 






~ r2 









o 


« 






o 


s 




t^ 






-« 


S 






'a 


«> 



s^S^ 



«. X TO " 



L'S X' ^ QO Oi i- O 



t' f- T -v O 

;0 i^ (7» C* « O 

rH ^H — ^ CC m O 

01 ^ ol^ a rr <a o 
c7 n o" cT Qo" cxT cT 

tH lO O QO 



8 IS'^s 



KM p 



c =' 



05 ai^ 3 

=8 c.2.2 ^ ,r 

" t- fcT tr'z 'S -^ -w r-j •= 

« w ro'B'tt^^^ — •^• 

.S2.2 S£-"-»* «' 
*5 *M 'm '2 -"^ ?^ S'' t^ r^H 
05 K <» a a.E:.t' S ,-. 



?5 



g4^ 
cq s e 



5: S 



Pq(4- 



Pi & 



?4 x> 









0-3 




J 



443 

War DKrAKTMENT, 

October 9, 1871. 
Sir : Eefcrriiif^ to your letter of the 4tb of October, in regard to the irregularities iu 
the accounts of George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of Freedmen, 
1 have the honor to inform you that, in a personal interview, I called upon General O. O. 
Howard, Commissioner of that Bureau, to relieve General Balloch from Iiis duties as 
said disbursing officer, and General Howard has to-day informed nio that he has re- 
lieved General Balloch, as requested. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of IVar. 
The Hon. Seckktary of the Treasury. 

The Judge-Advocate said : The next coramunicatiou is from Briga- 
dier-General Howard to the Secretary of War, and is as follows : 

War DErARTMEXT, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Wasliington, D. C, January 22, 1872. 
Sir : I liave the honor to state that, on October 12, 1871, when I became tlie suc- 
cessor to General George W. Balloch as disbursing officer, he turned over to me two 
hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) of United States bonds, the cost price of 
which was $279,375. 

Genera} IkiTlocICa interest statement. 

received. 

March 20, 1871. Advance interest to ISIay 1 $5, 54?! 10 

August 1,1871. Three months' interest 3, .520 12 

$9, 063 22 

DISBURSED. 

As per account-current rendered you " $Z, 222 90 

Transferred to me, (General Howard) 6, 840 32 

$9, 063 22 

On receipt of the interest, I immediately deposited the same in the United States 
Treasury— $6,840.32. 

I liave received interest since the bonds came into my possession, and 
nccounted for the same, as shown by my accounts-current I'endered the 
Third Auditor for October and November,' 1871 $3, 496 09 

BONDS SOLD. ' ' 

December 28, 1871. $52,000 ® 1 10 , J^t $57, 213 12 

Januarv 9, 1872. 75,000 ^u) 109f a2, 312 .50 

January 19, 1872. 123,000 Qj 109$ 134, 992 50 

274,518 12 

Total received 284, 854 53 

Cost 279,375 00 

Gain 5, 479 53 

When I informed you that 5-20s were purchased and exchanged for these bonds, and 
that on this General Balloch received advanced interest to the amount of $5,543.10, you 
will readily perceive that the actual cost of the $2.50,000 of United States bonds was 
$279,375, less $5,.543.10, or $273,831.90. 

The total proceeds of the bonds in question, including all interest realized therefrom, 
has been deposited in the United States Treasury ; the gain taken up and accounted 
for by tiie to the United States Treasurer. 
\ ery respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General, United States Army, Commissioner. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 



• 444 

The JuDaE-ADVOCATE said : 

The next communication is from the Assistant Adjutant-General Yin- 
cent to th(^ Second Auditor, and reply of the latter. They are as 
follows : 

War Departmp:nt, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, July 26, 1873. 
Sir: Referring to your letter of September 30, 1871, to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
as to an irregularity disclosed in the accounts of General G. W. Ballocb, and tJie letter 
of the Secretary of the Treasury, dated October 4, 1871, transmitting a copy of your 
letter to the Secretary of War, I have the honor to request information as to the action 
had by General Ballocb under the directions of the Secretary of the Treasury to you to call 
npon him, (General B.,) * » * * "torender an account of any payments made 
to real claimants in cases where by error or fraud payments had been previously made 
to persons not entitled to the same." 

A copy of the accoimt, if auy, with names, &c., of the "persons" so rendered, is 
respectfully requested, also information as to the action by the accounting offlcers in 
regard to it. 

As the foregoing is for the information of the Secretary of War, and connected with 
a matter before him, a prompt reply to this will promote the public interest. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 
The Second Auditor of the Treasury, 

lf'ashin</fon,D. C. 

[Copy of iuilorsemeut on above letter.] 

Treasury Department, Second Auditor's Office, 

July 31, 1873. 
Eespectfully returned with a copy of a letter written to General Ballocb, October G, 
187], in relation to the subject within referred to, to which no answer has ever been 
received bv this Oflice, so far as appears from the records. 

C. F. HERRING, 

Aclina Auditor. 

[Copy of letter referred to in above indorsement.] 

Treasury Department, Second Auditor's Office, 

October 6, 1871. 
Sir: You are respectfully requested so furnish this Office, at your earliest conveni- 
ence,|^ith a statement of the exact cost of the bouds now held by you as a part of the 
balance in your hands as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands ; also, a statement showing the entire amount of interest received 
by you upon said bonds. In case you have made any payment of bounty, &,c., to per- 
sons not entitled to receive the same, and have afterward been obliged to ])ay such 
amounts to the true claimants, you will please furnish a statement in detail of the 
amounts so paid. 

Very respectfully, 

C. F. HERRING, 

Acting Auditor. 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Bali.och, 

Chief Disbursing Officer, Bureau B., F.and A. I.. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington, D. C, Septemier 10, 1873. 
Sir : In reply to your favor of this date, I have the honor to inclose herewith copy 
of the letter of General O. O. Howard, Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, addressed to you under date of December 27, 1871, and by 
you referred to this Office December 30, 1871 ; also, a copy of the statement of General 
Balloch's "bond" account, which was inclosed in said letter. 
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 
Hon. W. W. Beukxap, 

Secretary of War. 



445 

The Judge-Advocate said : 
The inclosed statement referred to is also on page 18, Exhibit B. The 
copy of letter of Brigadier-General Howard, reterred to in the above 
commnnication from the Secretary of the Treasury, of September 10, 
1873, is as follows : 

"War Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen ani> Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, Decvmher 27, 1871. 
Sir : Referring to your indorsement of the Gth inst., upon a letter of the honorable 
Secretary of the Treasury, of the 28th ult., I have the honor to report that I have 
already accounted, to the Treasury for all interest collected upon the United States 
bonds in my possession, and will make an official report of the disposition of the whole 
fund as soon as the bonds can bo reconverted into currency, in accordance with the 
suggestions of the Secretary of the Treasury and your orders. 
Very respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brhjadicr-Genind U. S. A., Commissioner. 
Hon. Secretary of War. 

The following was also read : 

War Department, Septemher 11, 1873. 
Sir : I have the honor to inclose a copy of a communication from General O. 0. How- 
ard, late- Commissioner of Bitfeau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in 
which he states that he has " already accounted to the Treasury for all interest collected 
upon the United States bonds in my possession, and Avill make an official report of the 
disposition of the whole fund as soon as the bonds can be reconverted into currency," 
and to request that I be furnished with copies of any accounts or reports made by him 
in relation to this matter in the Treasury Department. I have already been furnished 
with cojiy of statement inclosed in said letter of the 24th December, 1871. 
An early replj? is respectfully retiuested. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
Hon. Secretary of the Treasury. 



Treasury Depai!Tment, 
Washitiglon, D. C, September 12, 1873. 
Sir: Respectfully referring to your letter of the 11th instant, I have the honor to 
inform you that the records of this Oftice do not show that General Howard has ever 
rendered any report of the disposition of the funds referred to in his letter to you of 
December 27, 1871, except the statement of General Balloch's account, a copy of which 
was sent you in my letter of the 10th instant. 
I am, very respectfully, 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 

The Judge- Advocate said : The next is a letter of the Second Audi- 
tor to the Assistant Adjutant-General. This is the statement referred 
to in Inspector-General Schriver's report, dated October 3, 1873, as nec- 
essary to a i^roper understanding of the subject. (See Exhibit B, 
pagelo.) 

Treasury Department, 

Second Auditor's Office, 

November 21, 1873. 
Sir : I inclose a copy of a statement made by General George W. Balloch, of bounty 
claimants erroneously paid by him, and also one of a letter received from him in rela- 
tion to United States bonds which he held as disbursing officer of the Freedmen's 
Bureau. These papers were sent to this Office and mislaid in October, 1871, during the 
absence of the chief clerk, and have just been found in his room. 
Respectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, Auditor. 
General Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General, U. S. A. 



• 446 

statement of bonnty-clainiauts who have beeu erroneously paid, and whose claims 
have been paid the second time by me, from May 1, 1867, to October 10, 1871. 



Xame. 



Company, 



Eegiment. 



Amount. 



Miles H. Jordan 

Jackson Piii'se 

Samuel Griffilu 

John Jones 

Arthur Goings 

Kichard Tiuiier 

Henry Anthony 

Stephen Thornton 

Charles Brown 

Henry Eussell 

Gus. Bell 

Isaac Eichey 

;^[ichael Custon 

Hary Ann Johnson, willow of Wesley Johnson 



H 
E 
D 
B 
A 
B 
K 
B 
K 
A 
G 
G 
A 
H 



36th Colored Troops . 
35th Colored Troops . . 
3d Heavy Artillery . . , 

1st Cavalrv !! 

23d Colored Troops . . . 

2d Colored Troops 

4th Colored Troops 

112th Colored Troops 
76th Colored Troops . . 
47th Coloiod Troops . . 
48tli Colored Troops . . 
48th Colored Troops .. 
4!tth Colored Troops . . 
125tli Colored Troops . 



$86 50 
228 00 
285 50 
189 50 
204 80 
223 50 
113 10 
192 70 
253 11 
239 75 
239 75 
264 38 
236 58 
204 59 



2,041 76 



I certify, on honor, that the above account is correct. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Second Auditors's Offick, 

Washington, D. C, 'Noveruher 21, 187.3. 

I certify that the above is a true copy of the original on tile in this office. 

E. B. FRENCH, 
Second Auditor. 

Copies of statement and letter of Brevet Brigadier-General Ballocb 
referred to in foregoing letter of Second Auditor of November 21, 1873. 

War Department, Bureau of Refugees, 

Fkeedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, D. C, October 11, 1871. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of October G, in relation to the cost of bonds held by me 
as disbursing officer of this Bureau, the amount of interest received on tlie same, and 
any payments made to bounty-claimants erroneously, which I had been obliged to pay 
again, I would submit the following statement : 

1. The cost of the bonds, |250,000, at $lllf, $279,37.5. 

2. Amount of interest received on these bonds, i|3,.520.12. 

3. Payments made as per inclosed statement, !|3,041.76. 

Very respectfully, 

GEORGE W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General, and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Hon. E. B. French, 

Second Auditor. ^ 

Second Auditor's Office, 
Washington, D. C, Koveinber 21, 1873. 

I certify that the above is a true copy of the original on file in this office. 

E. B. FRENCH, 

Second Auditor. 



Upon the conclusion of tbe reading of tbe foregoing, tbe court, at 3 
o'clock, adjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock a. m. 



447 



THIRTY-FIFTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Eooms, No. 1816 F Street, 
Washington, I). (7., Tuesday, April 28, 1874 — 11 a. ni. 

The court met i^ursuant to tbe foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. Gen. William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, XJ. S. A. ; 
C. Col. J. J. Eeynolds, Third Calvary, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, jadge-adyocateU. S. A., judge-adyocate; also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. 
Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approyed. 

John T. Vinson was then called as a witness by the accused, and, 
being duly sworn, was examined as follows : 

Direct examinatio n . 
By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Please give your name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. My name is John T. Vinson. I reside in Kockyille, Mont- 
gomery County, Maryland. I am employed at j^resent in the internal- 
reyenue office as a clerk. I am in charge of the refunding section in the 
Internal Eeyenue Bureau. 

Question. AVhat was your former emi)loyment ? 

Answer. I went into the Third Auditor's Office in the Treasury Depart- 
ment. 

Question. What was your particular business in the office ? 

Answer. I was employed for a part of the time in the settlement of 
quartermasters' accounts, State war-claims, and had charge of the 
Freedmen's accounts from the time Congress made an appropriation for 
the Bureau. The accounts were referred to me for settlement. 

Question. Did you eyer see in your room certain accounts of General 
Balloch for retained bounty ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. General Balloch returned his Bureau accounts under 
the regular appropriation and then what we call the Refugees, Freed- 
men's and Abandoned Lands account, and his " retained-bounty " ac- 
counts all together. He returned his " retained-bounty " accounts reg- 
ularly monthly with his other accounts, and after the examination of his 
general account I examined them and settled them myself, and upon an 
examination of his retained-bounty fund I could find no law that seemed 
to me to warrant a settlement in the Third Auditor's, or any appropria- 
tion by which it could be entered upon our books : and 1 told him I 
tliought it was useless for him to render any more accounts, as we could 
not settle them. I did not know of any law which warranted it. I 
didn't know under what appropriation it should be rendered, and I gaye 
him notice to that effect. 

Question. Were those complete accounts made in the or^linary way t 

Answer. As far as I exami]ied thoni they were. 



448 

Question. With accompauyiug vouchers? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Vouchers of the ordinary sort, signed and witnessed ? 

Answer. I am not prepared to say whether they were signed and wit- 
nessed, but I have no recollection now of any informality. I took up 
the " retained-bounty " as I had other accounts, and after I had examined 
them, I came to the conclusion that, although accompanied by vouch- 
ers in the proper shape, I was not authorized to settle them ; and I think 
I must have consulted with the head of the Bureau in relation to that 
matter, because I would not assume so much responsibility myself. 
Whether or not I examined the accounts that were returned to the office 
after I gave him that information I am not prepared now to answer ; 
but my impression is that vouchers uniformly accompanied his accounts- 
current the same as other accounts. 

Cross-cxatn 'ma Hon . 

By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. When did you give General Balloch notice on this subject? 

Answer. That account had been in the office some time. I could not 
speak of dates. It would be impossible. 

Question. Could you give us the year ? 

Answer. No. I could not give the year. I took up the accounts as it 
was convenient to examine and adjust them. But after I had settled 
his Bureau accounts, the regular appropriation accounts, including his 
school-fund, and when I came to examine and settle the " retained- 
bounty," I found I could not do it, and I told him I could not do it ; 
that I did not know any appropriation. I may have been in error about 
it, but that was my impression, and I so informed him. 

Question. Have you any data or memoranda by, which you can find 
the period at which you gave him that notice ? 

Answer. 1 have not. But I think upon examination of the earlier 
settlements of the accounts, I could approximate it. Go into the office 
and see what accounts I first settled for him, and what period of time 
it covered. It was after my first settlement, I know, because I took up 
the regular accounts first and finished those ; then I took up his " re- 
tained-bounty" account with a view to finish it. I examined his " re- 
tained-bounty" account myself You will find the settlement of his 
other accounts in my handwriting. What time that was done, I am 
not able to say, because I did not charge my memory, and if I did I do 
not know that I could remember it; but the fact itself is perfectly 
clear. 

Question. Then you have no knowledge at what time or in what year 
you settled his other account ? 

Answer. During the entire time I was in the Third Auditor's Office, 
from the passage of the law making the first appropriation for the Bu- 
reau, I settled the accounts regularly, until I left in 1869, in July. Now, 
as to what the first settlement was, I could not possibly say. I do not 
even recollect the date of the passage of the law, although I drew the 
act under which money that came into the Bureau from irregular sources 
■was passed. I prepared a rough draught of the law which Congress 
enacted, with some modifications, and under which money received from 
outside sources other than appropriations by Congress came into the 
hands of the Bureau, and was adjusted in the Third Auditor's Office. 



449 

Questiou. State in detail exactly what those " irregular retaiued- 
boimty accounts" or vouchers contained. 

Answer. I did not have anytbiug to do with the " irregular retained- 
bonnty fund," as I tell you. Upon examination of that fund, I came to 
the conclusion I had nothing to do with it. 

Question. Did you ever make an exaniinatiou of the vouchers ! 

Answer. M}' impression is I made an examination of the vouchers at 
the time I arrived at the conclusion I had not power to settle it. I .ex- 
amined the vouchers first accompanying the account. 1 thought of 
making a settlement ; but I could find no appropriation under which 
that could be entered, and I did not know how I could settle it. I did 
not know of any law warranting it to be settled in the Third Auditor's 
Office, and for that reason I did not settle it; and I so informed General 
Balloch. I may be in error about thelaw, but that was my impression 
at the time : aud I am sure I could not have acted upon that conclusion 
without consulting those under whom I was acting; that would be the 
Auditor, and probably Mr. Schumann, under whom I first went. He was 
at the head of the quartermaster division. 

Question. Did you give sufficient examination to the vouchers of those 
accounts to be able to state whether they were correct and proper ''. 

Answer. 1 gave sufficient examination to say this: that upon their 
face they were apparently so. I do not recollect now that they differed 
from other vouchers that were submitted aud settled in the other ac- 
counts. I am not prepared to say tliat I examim^d any account rendered 
by General Balloch after I gave him notice I could not settle. My im- 
pression is I did not. 

Q. Do you recollect whether or not you gave those accounts and 
vouchers sufficient examination to pass them as valid accounts and 
vouchers, provided they were pro])erly to be settled in your Oifice? 

Answer. My impression is that I examined the accounts with ordinary 
care, though in adjustiug the accounts. //ua?/^ I generally go over them 
again to find whether I am mistaken or not. I generally am more careful 
in the second examination than 1 am in the first. At first I would mark 
upon the voucher any objection that it Avould seem to be liable to; gen- 
erally would indorse the vouchers with some little memorandum, which 
would indicate to me whether the voucher was entirely correct, or would 
require further examination ; then, when I came to settle the account, I 
would examine my objections, and settle the account in that way. I am 
not prepared to say that I would have passed the " retained bounty" ac- 
count on the examination that I then made. I am not prepared to say 
that, because, as I say, usually when I settled the accounts, I would re- 
examine the vouchers. But, my impression is, the vouchers were fair 
upon their faces. 

Question. Can you fix that with any deflniteness whether or not you 
had any authority from your proper superior to make this statement to 
General Balloch ? 

Answer. I would not like to swear positively to that, fact, because I 
have no distinct recollection of any particular interview at which I was 
warranted to do it ; but I don't think I would have assumed such re- 
sponsibility unless I was authorized to do it; it is not my habit. 

Question. Do you recollect what General Balloch said when you made 
that remark to him ! 

Answer. No ; 1 do not. 

Question. You have no recollection of the year in which you made 
that statement to him ? 

Answer. I could not say. It was some time after the account had 
29 H c 



• 450 

been reiulered in the Office. His retained bounty fund, according to my 
recollection, accoiiii)anied bis other accounts regularly, monthly. The 
other accounts 1 settled, and then, as I say, in the examination of the 
"retained bounty," after I had gone through and examined the voucb- 
ers, and looked at the account, I came to the conclusion there was no 
law which warranted a settlement in the Third Auditor's Office. After 
that I notified General Howard. 

(Question. For bow many months, as near as you can fix it, did this 
"irregular retained-bounty account" accompany the others to your 
office 1 

Answer. The records of the Third Auditor's Office will show exactly, 
for I entered every one of them as they came in, according to my recol- 
lection, I may be in error about it, but that is my recollection. I refer 
to the records for my answer to that. 

Question. Who was the Third Auditor at that time ? 

Answer. My impression is Mr. John Wilson was the Third Auditor 
part of the time; probably all the time. 

Question. Did you tell General Balloch to take those accounts away ? 

Answer. I am not prepared to say. That is a matter I would not 
like to si^eak of, because in telling him I could not settle his account I 
might have told him " You had better remove those accounts — take them 
away," but I have no distinct recollection at this moment of having 
told him to take them away, because 1 know it was a matter I had con- 
siderable thought about as to what disi)osition should be made of the 
account — whether it should go to the Second Auditor, or what should 
be done with it. 

[Exa-mimitiou closed.] 

John H. Cook, a witness called by the accused, then came before 
the court and was dul}- sworn and examined. 

Direct examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. What is your name, occupation, and present residence*? 

Answer. John H. Cook; I am practicing law in this city, and reside 
at the Howard University. 

Question. Were you employed in the Freedraeu's Bureau, and at what 
time and in what capacity ! 

Answer. I was employed in theFreedmen'sBureau from February, 1867, 
until its close, as employment agent during my first months or years 
there, and latterly as clerk in the educational department, and finally 
as chief clerk during the last five months of the existence of the Bu- 
reau, I think. 

Question. Were you familiar with the records of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau ? 

Auswer. I was quite familiar with the records of the educational de- 
partment, and latterl}^ with the records of the Adjutant-General's of- 
fice of that Bureau, and the archives, and some general knowledge 
about the records and the bounty registers. 

(Question. What was the condition of the records of the educational 
division at the time of the discontinuance of the Bureau? 

Answer. The records at headquarters were in good condition. There 
were several books of letters sent and letters received, index-books 
that had been completed under my supervision, and latterly by myself 
entirely. They were in got)d condition ; they were complete as far as 
they contained any informatiwu in regard to the department. 



451 

Question. How was it iu regard to the records of the Adjiitaut-Geu- 
eral's office of the Bureau ? 

Answer. 1 can say substantially the same thing of those records. 
They had been copied by experienccMl clerks previous to my connection 
with the office of chief clerk, and during the last four or live months of 
the existence of the Bureau we nuide special effi)rts to have the records 
of that office in good condition, and I think it safe to say the letters 
were all in place and transmitted, regularly placed in books kept, for 
that purpose, and indexed so that information could be obtained in 
each. 

Cross-exam inatior. 

By tlie Judge- Advocate : 

Question, You say that you were chief clerk ? 

Answer. Yes, during the last five or six months of the existence of 
the Bureau. 1 do not remember the number of months. 

Question. About what mouth did you become chief clerk 1 

Answer. That 1 am in doubt about; some time 1 think in March, 1872. 

Question. What were your duties as chief clerk ? 

Answer. I had supervision of the books of the Adjutaut-Generars 
office, and communications coming from the various de[)artments to that 
office, and in some cases framing replies to them, based upon them, 
obtaining infornnition and passing them to the xldjutaut-General, either 
for submission to the Commissioner or transmittal. I had charge of the 
nmil-matter, oi>ening the mail, and sent the various letters that belonged 
to the various tlivisions to the various divisions. 

Question. How many did you have to assist you during that time? 

Answer. 1 had two or three. One clerk was partially employed on 
the arcliives, stationed in a room in the lower part of the building; and 
the other two were employed iu the room ; during a portion of the time 
only one. 

Question. How long a time were they employed during the day each 
day? 

Answer. I think one was employed during the entire day, and the 
other for half a day. 

Question. About how many communications did you receive on an 
average a day in the Adjutant General's Office? 

Answer. 1 could not say. 1 do not remember at this distance. 

Question. Approximately. 

Answer. Nothing that I could say on the subject would be evidence, 
because I do not remember. The records would show for themselves ; 
sometimes more, sometimes less. I could not make any statement that 
would be reliable. 

Question. Can you not form any estimate at all as to the number of let- 
ters — 100, 150, 200, or 25 on an average ? 

Answer. No, sir ; I could not. If 1 should I might make a mistake 
about it. 

Question. While you were chief clerk there, when letters were received, 
from March up to the discontinuance of the Bureau, on July 1st, 1872, 
what did you do with those letters ? 

Answer. We briefed them on the first leaf; entered that letter in a 
book of " letters received," and then if I knew just about what reply 
should be made to it, I prepared that reply and submitted it to the 
adjutant-general of the Bureau. 



452 

Qiiestiou. How mauy other clerks were employed at the Bureau during 
that time you were chief clerk ? 
Answer. During the months of February aud January ? 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 
Question. What year was that ? 
Answer. Eighteen hundred and seventy-two. 

I don't remember. AVe had quite a number of clerks before the order 
issued by the Adjutant-General in accordance with authority from the 
Secretary of War to discharge them, I think we had eight or teu in the 
entire Bureau during those tive months. 

By the Judge- Advocate: 

Question. Up to July 1st. 1872 ? 

Answer. I think so. 

Question. How much time were they at work there during the day ? 

Answer. Except a clerk that we had, a very superior young man, in 
the Adjutant-General's Ottice, and one, perhaps, in the archive division, 
they were employed all their time ; that is, I remember veri' well Mr. 
Terry, Mr. Blue, and Mr. Thompson that were employed the whole day ; 
but in addition there were some copyists, young men, employed half a 
day to copy. I don't know exactly how many, eight or ten all together. 

Question. How long a time every day were they employed ? 

Answer. Tliree hours, nine to twelve ; some of those others would 
come from twelve to three or four. 

Question. Where was Mr. Thompson? 

Answer. He was in the claim division ; he had supervision of the 
IHosecution work — of the bounty work. 

Question. Are you prepared to swear that at the time of the discon- 
tinuance of the liureau on July 1st, 1872, all letters which had been 
received during the time you were chief clerk were properly briefed and 
entered ? 

Answer, Not at all. 

Question. What propoition are you prepared to swear were properly 
briefed and entered ? 

Answer. In the adjutantgeneral's office all except perhaps within *ihe 
last week. 

Question. You will swear to that? 

Answer. Yes, unquestionably. In the bounty division the clerks were 
simply engaged in answering correspondence ; they could not do any- 
thing more, nothing more than just receive the letters aud file them 
away in a drawer or pigeon-hole and make answers to such as abso- 
lutely needed an answer, so as to prevent parties complaining. 

Question. What do you mean by claim division ? 

Answer. I mean the division charged with the prosecution of claims. 

Question. Bounty claims ? 

Answer. Claims for bounties. 

Question. What did that comprise — application for bounties ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And the settlement of bounties? 

Answer. Settlement of bounties, attention to attorneys' fees, which 
ran along in connection with the disbursing. 

Question. Y'ou had nothing to do with the disbursing division ? 

Answer. No, sir; I sim[)ly had general oversight, and knew that the 
letters had been entered. I frequently saw them in the drawers where 
they were put away. I sent them in to them, and had occasion to know 



453 

that they were filed away in pigeon-holes or draweis and replies sent to 
such as absolutely needed replies. 

Question. You do not know whether they were all briefed with en- 
tries or indexed ? 

Answer. I know that they were not, a great many of them, because 
there were no clerks to do that. 

Redirect exam i nation. 

The Counsel for the Accused. I understand from General Howard 
that in the ollice they made a distinction between " records" and '• arch- 
ives," and my question to the witness was confined to the records. I 
wish to ask him what was the condition of the archives. I supposed 
the word " record" included archive^ and everything in a permanent form, 
but General Howard seems to hav/had an understanding in the Bureau 
that the archives were distinct from the records. 

Answer. When the Bureau had withdrawn in a large measure from 
the South, the books kept in the various States were sent up, and as they 
came in m boxes they were opened and filed away in pigeon-holes and 
cases made for the purpose. These archives were in the lower part of 
the building ; two rooms ; we had not clerks toputupon them, and so could 
only take a clerk or two from elsewhere from some important duty, ex- 
perienced, and send him down there to put them away by States as far 
as he could, in order that information which would be needed for any of 
the States in case the Bureau continued could be easily obtained there. 
Letters were coming daily from the Secretary of War for information 
about cases in the South, and we had occasion to consult these. We 
formed a division and placed an ofticer over it and called it the "Archives 
Division." All these records from the South were stored in that divis- 
ion. In reference to the conditioij of those records we found they had 
not been indexed in very many instances, and if information was desired 
about a certain case we had to search a great while for it, consequently 
some eftbrt was made to assort all those records or label them as far as 
possible and index them, and that work had proceeded to this extent, 
they had all been nicely assorted in States, every paper belonging to a 
given State was stored in its proper i)lace in that State, and to some ex- 
tent largely labeled. Also papers pertaining to the Quartermasters 
Department and to the Bounty Department and the Disbursing Depart- 
ment, were all assorted and labeled ; the clerks were proceeding with 
the index when the Bureau was closed up. A large portion of the time 
of the clerks was taken up in searching for information called for by the 
Commissioner and the Secretary of War, so that they were not in as 
complete condition as the records of the adjutant-general's office of the 
Bureau at head(]uarteis. The eftbrt was being made at that time to 
make them complete. 

By the Court : 

Question. Do you remember, about the time the Bureau was discon- 
tinued, using sucli an expression as that the archives were in a "terrible 
condition 1 " 

Answer. I have never made such an expression to anybody, and any 
statement to that effect is, to use no harsher term, simply incoirect. I 
can state the circumstances, if the court desire, under which the ccmversa- 
tion was held between an officer and myself. 

Question. What was his name. 

Answer. Mr. Mood v. 



454 

(Question. Give the couversation. 

Answer. When the Freeduieu's Barcuu was closed up Mr. Moody and 
Mr. Woodward came to the Bureau at the university, and stated that 
they had been autliorized to see to the transmitting of the records; that 
they had been put in charge of certain records, Mr. Woodward sayiug 
thai he would have charge in the Adjutaut-General's Office, and he 
wanted me to show him the records of that office ; I thiuk he also said 
the "Archive Division.-' Mr. Moody said he was to have charge of the 
" Bounty Branch." They came to look after the work and see the records, 
and have them transferred, I said to Mr. Moody, and also to Mr. 
Woodward, that it would not be well to undertake to transfer those 
records in a little while, because they would become so confused they 
would never be able to straighten them up. W^e had had some experi- 
ence, having moved from Nineteenth and I streets to the Howard Uni- 
^-ersity, and subseipiently having removed the records from up-stairs to 
down stairs, aud I thought I knew something about that. He made reply 
to me that he had straightened out the records of the Provost-Marshal- 
Geuerars Department that were in utter confusion, and the impression 
left on my mind was that the insigniticant Bureau could also be straight 
ened out; and, as I have before stated, wagons w^ere at once sent in large 
numbers, half a dozen at a time I think, aud as rapidly as the clerks and 
laborers coukl take the records to those wagons they were called for 
aud placed in, and the clerks felt they were ordered to place them in as 
they did, that is, rapidly ; and they were transferred to the building near 
here, thrown in in utter confusion, just as I had hoped they would not be; 
and that was the cause of that conversation. I frequently said to Mr. 
Moody that was not the way to remove these records ; that they would 
not be able to do anything with them when they got them there, aud 
they had better burn them up. He made tlie reply I have stated. The 
impression left here that I said tlie- records of the Bureau were in a 
terrible condition is simply incorrect; I might say, false. 

By the Judge -Advocate : 

Question. When you had this conversation with Mr. Moody at the 
Bureau, as to the allegation that he had straightened out the Provost- 
Marshal-General's records, who w^as present"? 

Answer. I would not say; I don't know that anyltody was present. 
He came to the Adjutant-General's Office at the door and introduced 
himself, as well as Mr. Woodward, and I then began to feel that, if the 
records were to be transferred, that pretty soon they would be in confu- 
sion. Somebody may have been standing by. I know, however, it was 
ji matter of common talk among all of us. 

Question. You are a lawyer? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. I think you have not answered my question. [Previous 
question repeated.] 

Answer. I answered that nobody that I knew of. I cannot say. 

Question. How do you know that the records were thrown into the 
building down here, in utter confusion '? 

Answer. I saw it myself. 

Question. Will you describe to the court in what the confusion con- 
sisted ? 

Answer. Yes. The records, as I said before to the court, were in papers, 
bundles tied with tape, and in some instances a label. They were taken 
from the Bureau State by State; in a single wagon there w^ere several 
States; several packages, perhaps 100 packages of papers of one State, 



455 

and 100 more of another. They were put into the lower part of the 
buihliug here, all the States together; in many instances the packages 
were broken open and the papers mixed together. That is what I mean 
by confusion. I saw it with my own eyes. I supposed that pretty soon 
a bonfire would be made and they would all be burnt up, and I thought 
tliat perhaps it was just as well. 
[Examination ended.] 

William V. Drew, a witness called by the accused, was then duly 
sworn and examined as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Please state your name, occupation, and residence in full. 

Answer. Wni. P. Drew, national-bank examiner, Washington, D, 0. 

Question, Were you at any time employed in the Freedmeu's Bureau; 
if so, at what time and in what capacity ! 

Answer. I was employed in May, 1805, transferred from the Quarter- 
master-General's Office to the Freedmen's Bureau until March or April, 
1872, a period of about 7 years, and at first as clerk of the laud-division, 
then as chief clerk of the claim-division, at that time comprising only 
the collection of bounties ; and then when the bounties were ordered 
paid through the Freedmen's Bureau, as first or chief clerk of that divi- 
su)n, all under one title of the "claim-division ;" and finally, after the 
retirement of Major Howe, of the Fourth Artillery, I was placed in charge 
as chief of the division. I could not say when I became chief of the 
division, but the record will show ; it was some two or three years 
before the close of the Bureau. I was discharged from the Bureau 
some three months prior to its final transfer or abolishuieat, being re- 
lieved by Major Brown. 

Question. What was the condition of the records of your division at 
the time you left it ? 

Answer. Good. 

Question. Were there any archives, so called, connected with your 
division ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. I wish you would explain to the court in your own way, 
and as briefly as possible, what were the particular duties devolving 
upon this claim-division of which you had charge. 

Answer. The claim division was divided in two branches. The prose- 
cution branch, first organized, took charge of the collection of bounties 
on application, acting in the place of the attorney, and prosecuting the 
€laim before the Auditor's Department for bounty, and before the Pen- 
sion-Office for pensions. When bounties were made payable through the 
Freedmen's Bureau, there was organized the certificate-branch in the 
same office ; this certificate-branch — its duties were exclusively confined 
to the reception of the certificates from the Auditor in settlement of 
claims, and when received they were revised in that office; occasionally, 
though not often, there would be some clerical error in the form of the 
certificate or in the allowance, and the certificate would be returned 
to the Second Auditor for correction ; and all certificates for settlement 
of colored bounties, payable through General Howard, came into this 
office. After this examination, cursori/ of course, the attorneys were 
written to for their fees, because accompanying the certificate was a 
blue letter from the Second Auditor's Office, informing the Bureau who 



456 

the attorney in tlie case was. We sent out blank bills ; tbe attorney 
made up those bills under the law prescribing the scale of fees. He was 
directed by the Department to give us the lastpost-ofljce address of his 
client. Those certificates, with the blue letter and the discharge and the 
bill thus received and adjusted, were sent to General Balloch, inclosed 
in a wrai)per, on the back of which were the salient points of the case : 
the name of the man, the company, regiment, where he lived, who was 
the attorney, the amount of fees to be paid to the attorney, and then 
the balance carried out and marked to be paid to the claimant. After 
the transmission of these certificates to the chief disbursing officer and 
his receipt — merely a personal receipt to me — for the certiticates, the 
functions of the certilicate-branch of the claim -division entirely ended. 
They had nothing further to do in regard to it. 

Question. This branch of yours, then, was for the benefit of the claim- 
ants without expense to them ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. You speak now of the prosecution branch ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Was it necessary in the performance of your duties to get 
information from the various Departments I 

Answer. It was. 

Question. Were you obliged to call on the War Department for in- 
formation "? 

The Judge-Advocate said: I suggest that this is not a proper mode 
of questioning on the direct examination. The (juestions are leading in 
themselves and recpiire a categorical answer. 

The Accused said, (through his counsel :) The manner is objectionable^ 
but this is a very intelligent witness and I desire to save time. 

The Peesident of the court said : This cannot attect us ; it is not as 
if it was before a jury. 

The Judge-Advocate said: But it is, how^ever, a question to the 
witness. 

The Accused (through his coun.^el) said: Well, I v»ill modify the 
question. 

Question. In the business of procuring information from the various 
Departments of the Government, what facilities did you receive"? 

Answer. In the prosecution of the claims, as you term it — the collection 
of claims — we found it necessary in the case ofthePension-Office,and often 
in the case of naval bounty, to go to the naval office, but mainly to the War 
Department. I cannot perhaps do better than to give an illustration. A 
person would nmke a claim ; he would allege that he had rendered certain 
service to the Government, and in order to proceed upon the claim and 
save time, it was the early custom of the Bureau to take a memorandum 
of his statement to the Adjutant-General's Office to satisfy and deter- 
mine as to whether the man was really in the conq)any and in the regi- 
ment, and did render the services. If he did, the claim was theuput up; 
if not, we let him put it up on his own account, and leave him to verify 
it subsequently by the records. That was done generally. When Major 
Fowler had charge of the division it was customary for a clerk to take 
the requests to the Adjutant-General's Office in the form of a memor- 
andum, and he experienced no difficulty in getting the desired informa- 
tion often on the back of the identical piece of pai)er. After a while, 
however, that information was withheld, and a letter was sent to us in- 
forming us that the Department could not give any information upon 
whicii to hasen claim, and particularly to have this understood, because 
there was a distinction between information as to identification of a 



457 

claimant and information for basing- a claim. It was only, so far as T 
know, in regard to pntting np a claim against the Government that this 
information was snbseqnently withheld by the War Department. We 
then, however, continned the best we conld to obtain information from 
other sources. 

Question. If I understand you, the point then was, that the informa- 
tion would be withheld as long as it was an incomplete claim, and would 
be furnished after the claim was complete ? 

Answer. It would not be necessary then ; the claim was made good 
by other testimony. Our object was to get such a straight case with 
the Auditor as would save him time and expense all round. 

Question. The purpose was to facilitate payment "? 

Answer. Yes ; to facilitate i)ayment and settlement of the bounty'. 

Question. Did it have that effect ? 

Answer. It had largely ; it would necessarily have the effect for 
claims against the Government. 

Question. Was this information from your office the information upon 
which the disbursing ofhcer acted ? 

Answer, ^o, sir. He knew nothing about it ; Ave acted precisely as a 
claim agent. 

Question. I mean the disbursing officer. General Balloch. 

Answer. He had nothing to do with those cases at all. That infor- 
mation would not affect the functions ot his office any more than the 
business of any private claim agent would be known to him. 

Question. I understood that all these items ot information furnished 
by you went upon the jackets in his room ? 

Answer. That is after the case was settled by the Department. The 
Treasury certificate issued in settlement goes into General Balloch's 
room with these papers which I have mentioned with the discharge. If 
he was a discharged soldier, the blue letter and the bills of the attorney. 
Long- before the certificate is issued, the Auditor acts upon certain evi- 
dence. In all cases we acted as attorney, and furnished to the Auditor 
certain evidence, part of which we got from the W^ar Department direct. 

Question. With regard to the performance by the Commissioner of the 
duties of his office, have you any knowledge so that you could speak in 
regard to his diligence and attention to business ? 

Answer. I could speak most unreservedly in regard to his official con- 
duct, so far as it affects my own branch. 

Question. Please state. 

Answer. I do not think there was ever a case, either by letter or in 
person, that came to General Howard, that he did not instantly report to 
me, bring it before me. I could bear testimony of his daily faithfulness in 
that regard. 

Question. Can you go auj^ more into details! 

Answer. If I may be allowed to say, I could not speak too strongly in 
attestation of his fidelity in all respects, and his conscientiousness. 

By the Peesident : 

Question. You saw him daily ? 

Answer, I have known him since I was a boy. 

Question. Saw him in the ofiice ? 

Answer. In the otfice daily. No man in the office was so much about 
the whole Bureau as General Howard ; it was noted by everybody con- 
nected with the Bureau, from the messenger to the Adjutant-General. 
They would certify to the same thing. 

Question. Diligent in the supervision of the details in all branches? 



458 

A. lu every respect. Of course I do not mean to say be was aquainted 
with the details of all the various divisions, but he was at the head of 
all, about all, oversaw all, and he made frequent personal inspections 
as far as any chief of a Bureau could make an inspection. 
Question. Do you know the meaning of " due diligence f 
Answer. I trust I do. I should say most unequivocally he exercised 
due diligence. 

Cross-examination. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. You say that the records were good in the claim and cer- 
tificate division '? 

Answer. Yes, sir ; when 1 left there. 

Question. Please state exactly what you mean by that. 

Answer. I mean that all letters received were duly briefed and en- 
tered, and all actions duly noted; all letters sent duly entered, and the 
whole routine of business up to the time I left it, with the exception of 
cases that were laying over unfinished awaiting further evidence, were 
in perfect condition so far as I could judge. I was relieved some two or 
three months before the close of the Bureau. 

Question. When did you begiu to keep a record of letters received 
and letters sent? 

Answer. At the very inception of the business. 

Question. At what date ? 

Answer. March, 18GG. Major Fowler was in charge of the division 
at that time. I would like to say, if I may be allowed, that the clerks 
who had charge of the records of my oftice had served, some of them, in 
the Adjutant-General's Department of the Army. One of them kept 
the letters received and the indorsements of the certificate branch of 
my office. He is chief clerk of the Educational Bureau ; and Mr. Duvall 
and Mr. Dow, and Mr. Samuel Warren, and Mr. Thompson, who is now 
a clerk to Major Vincent at the Freedmen's Burtau , Mr. Thompson 
was my chief clerk all through this period. They were experienced men, 
faithful men, and diligent men ; and, so far I ever knew, entirely com- 
petent in all res])ects, and the records were in excellent shape. 

(Question. You had nothing to do with the disbursing branch of the 
office ? 

Answer. I never paid any bounties. I collected a few claims for com- 
mutation of rations of men while prisoners of war, through Colonel Bell, 
and i>aid them, taking care to take his check and not mine. A few pen- 
sion claims were collected in the same way ; paid by the check of the 
pension agent. 

Question. You had nothing to do, then, with the records of the dis- 
bursing branch of the oftice? 

Answer. Nothing whatever. I will say here that many cases of alleged 
erroneous payments and many cases of alleged non-payment, as well as 
more cases of alleged fraud on the part of claim-agents, were investigated 
by my office. In some cases the money was recovered from the claim-agen t 
when bounties were payable to the order of claimants who had been 
swindled by their attorneys out of it. At General Howard's suggestion 
I took up a number of those cases and recovered the money. In such 
cases I always paid — sent the money, if I did not go myself. If it was 
near I would go myself; if not, I would give General Balloch the money, 
and he would give me his draft on our local disbursing officer for it; 



459 

but, so far as General Ballocli's duties were concerned as cliief disburs- 
ing- officer, I liad nothing whatever to do with them. 

Question. What kind of information did you go to the War Depart- 
ment for in tliis claim business ? 

Answer. Mainly as to service of the man making claim. 

Question. State a little more specifically what you mean by service. 

Answer. Suppose a case of an alleged widow who makes a claim in 
Louisiana through the Bureau for a bounty. She says her husband 
was in Companj" C, Thirty-fifth Colored liegimeut; that he was killed 
in such a battle, or died in such a hospital. We would take the name of 
the soldier to the War Department to ascertain whether he was really 
in that company or regiment, from the muster-rolls. If so, we would go 
to the Surgeon- General's Office and see if he was actually cared for 
where the widow said he was cared for. That is a fair type of the 
information we derived from the Adjutaut-Generars Office. This ques- 
tion came up of the propriety of it ; and General Howard decided — 
told me, at any rate, he thought — it could be justified, inasmuch as he 
was at the head of a co-ordinate branch of the War Department, and 
that that information might be given to him as well as to anybody else ', 
there would be no harm in it. That was before we began asking infor- 
mation. He knew about it. 

Question. How did your obtaining this information save the Audi- 
tor time f 

Answer. It saved the Auditor time only in expediting the settlement of 
the claims — leaving it a shorter time in his hands — saving the Auditor 
time. He would hardly, by any possibility, be under the necessity of 
writing to uncertain sources for information. You know, of course, the 
method of prosecuting a claim. A man gets up a claim, and he makes 
the best statement he can ; and then, if that is verified by the records 
of the War Department of the Adjutant-GeneraFs Office, so far as the 
service is concerned, if he is a discharged soldier, and the pay office, 
then the claim is allowed. Of course we traversed a great deal of 
ground at that one jump, so to speak. A man or his widow might give 
improper information ; there might be misinformation from some one 
who said he saw him killed at Vicksburgh, when he had died in a hos- 
pital at IS'ew Qrleans ; or that he was shot through the leg, when he 
was shot through the heart — something of that kind. 

Question. In how many cases did your office act as claim-agent °? 

Answer. That I cannot say ; the reports of General Howard to the 
Secretary of War every year show the work of the year. When I went 
out of office there were unsettled claims to the number of 2,500 or 2,800, 
which were turned over to General Vincent, and they still remain, I pre- 
sume, hung up. 

(Question. Did not a good many of these claims have regular attorneys 
for them ? 

Answer. No, sir. I beg you to understand that when we opened this 
branch of the Bureau it was upon the hypothesis that a claim-agent as 
a homo was not altogether to be trusted, and that the Bureau was to act 
directly as a claim agent, and we, of course, took some cases out of sus- 
pended attorneys' hands and finished them ; but those were very few in 
comparison with the large number which we derived originally from our 
agents in the South. It was an anomaly and never existed before, that 
one branch of the Government should prosecute the Government. 
There was no law for it, that I ever knew. The Secretary of War, Mr. 
Stanton, and Mr. Lincoln recommended General How^ard to go ahead. 

Question. Do you know that to be a fact? 



460 

Answer. I know tbat was tbe statement when they started in with the 
work. 

(Question. You say they did : how do you know "? 

Answer. I do not know that they did. I did not see the Secretary of 
War nor the President. 

Question. Then, are you prepared to state that all of these 2,800 cases, 
about, taking that in round numbers, which were turned over to Major 
Vincent, were cases where there were no attorneys of record to prose- 
cute these claims of bounty-claimants for bounties due? 

Answer. O, no, sir; I will not say that. I will say the large bulk of 
them were — there might be a proportion, a certain percentage, which 
were derived from suspended attorneys and swindlers of women and 
men who had not had their claims settled, and we took them up for them. 
But a majority of cases were taken from the Bureau-agents from the 
claimants. When I say 2,800, I judge between 2,500 and 2,800. But 
that was the number when I was relieved from duty some three months 
before the transfer. 

(Question. AVhat proportion of those are you prepared to say were 
claims wholly prosecuted by the Bureau as agent for the individual ? 

Answer. Of course it is an approximative answer. I should say at 
least 90 per cent. 

Question. Of the 2,800 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir, that is my belief, two years away from the work. 

By the Court : 

Question. Ninety per cent, of what ? 

Answer. JS'inetenths of all claims which were turned over to the 
Adjutant General's Office under prosecution by the Bureau were original 
claims arising direct to the Bureau from the claimants, and not from any 
attorney excei)t in cases of suspended attorneys. 

(^)uestiou. How soon after taking these claims from the bounty-claim- 
ants did you take their receipts for the bounty, or did you have nothing 
to do with that ? 

Answer. I had nothing to do with that. The claims collected by the 
Freedmen's Bureau went to General Bulloch in the form of a Treasurj^- 
certificate from the Auditor's Office, through my office, in the same con- 
dition as though they had come from a private attorney. They were 
only marked with the name upon them — just marked "Attorney W. P. 
Drew, agent Bureau E., F. and A. L. oSTo fees." The whole amount was 
paid to the claimant. 

Question. Thewho!e amount and no deduction for fees '^ 

Answer. No, sir; no deduction for fees. In most of the cases the 
officers qualified themselves, and there were no notarial expenses; there 
were no deductions except for such notarial fees as were necessarily in- 
curred. 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him. 

The witness then said : I should like to correct my testimony on one 
point. 1 do not know that it is material, but as a gentleman will be be- 
fore you who was at one time in my office, and who was at one period 
chief clerk of the claim-division, I want to say that I am reported as 
stating that I was clilef clerk of the claim-division and land-division 
both. I desire to say that while I was chief clerk of the land division 
under Major Fowler, Mr. Duvall was chief clerk of the claim-division for 
a short period ; then, when the land-division was closed out, I assumed 
the chief clerkship. 



461 

One other point I would like to speak of. I say there was no law 
under which this collection could be taken ; I mean by that no specific 
statute ; but that it was understood by Major Fowler, who was himself 
a lawyer— he told nie — and it was so understood. I remember from 
General Howard, that the organic law of the Bureau, exteudinti' general 
supervision over refujiees and freedmen, would cover it, and that it was 
so recojiuized in often-recurring appropriations by Cougress for that ape- 
cific purpose. 

The witness then pronounced the testimony to be correct as recorded. 

Andrew Coates, called by the accused, being duly sworn, testified 
as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. State your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. Andrew Coates, saw-njaker, 304 Third avenue, Xew York. 

Question. Were you in the military service during the war ? 

Answer. I was. 

Question. At any time stationed at New Berne, IST. C, as agent of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds ? 

Answer. I was. 

Question. While so stationed there did you pay any claimants who 
claimed retained bounty which had been taken from them under an 
order of General Butler ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. How many did you pay ? 

Answer. I could not tell. About 500. 

Question. 1 am speaking of the retained bouuty. 

Answer. I am speaking of the retained bouuty. I think about 500. 

Question. How did you pay them ; in what form did you get the 
money to pay them ? 

Answer. Checks from General Balloch ; in some cases payable to the 
claimants, and in other cases payable to my order for several claimants. 

Cross-examination. 

By the JudctE-Advocate : 

(Question. How many did you say you paid ! 

Answer. Between 400 and 500 claims. 

Question. What sort of vouchers did you take ? 

Answer. The voucher was in the form of a receipt from General Bal- 
loch ; the claimant gave a receipt to General Balloch for it. 

Question. Did you take them in duplicate ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And reudered them to General Balloch ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How much money did that payment of yours cover ? 

Answer. Most of the claims were for $100, a few for $33^. 

Question. Did you keep any record in your office of these payments ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When you were relieved from duty in the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, what did you do with that 
record ? 

Answer. The record was in the form of letters sent and letters re- 
ceived. I also kept a private record for reference, which I have. 



^62 

Question. Have you it with you ? 

Answer. Tes, sir. It is an old hospital-register that I kept. 

Question. You understand what funds you are testifying about ? 

Answer. The retained State bounty, as it was called. 

Question. General Butler's order No. 90, of 18G4 ? 

Answer. I do not know about the order, but it was retained State 
bounty fund, not United States Government bounty. 

Question. How many descriptions of bounty did you have to pay ? 

Answer. Only two; one called the retained bounty, and the other 
United States bounty. 

Question. Have you any idea where this State bounty was derived 
from ? 

Answer. xVs I understood it, it was paid by the several States to re- 
cruits to fill up the quota required from the several States. 

The witness produced his record, at the request of the court. 

By the Court : 

Question. You have 572 recorded in this book *? 

Answer. There are a great number ot those that are United States 
bounty. All those in the register were entered at the time the claimants 
were paid, with the exception of 50 or (30, which were entered from let- 
ters. At the commencement I did not find any necessity for keeping the 
book. The letters sent and letters received showed ever}^ transaction. 

Question. Did you pay all individuals therein named '? 

Answer. Paid all the claimants themselves. 

Question. Not to their heirs? 

Answer. Y'es, sir; a few cases to their heirs. A few cases of widows, 
and perhaps one or two to a son or minor child or guardian of a minor 
child. 

The Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Where you have thus marked them on your book you did 
not pay the claimants themselves, but to those individuals, according 
as your record shows ? 

Answer. Yes, sii" ; the number of the check shows the number of Gen- 
eral Balloch's checks, and the certificate is the number of the Treasury 
certificate. 1 will also state that afterward I was required, by orders 
from headquarters, to keep a register of bounties paid from a certain 
date, which you will see marked at the end of that book ; the claims 
after that were kei)t in the regular register, which was transferred to 
the cashier of the Freedman's Savings Bank, my successor. 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him and pro- 
nounced by him to be correct as recorded. 

Lamech Duvall, a witness called by the accused, was then dul\- 
sworn, and testified as follows : 

Direct-examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Please give your full name, occupation, and present resi- 
dence ? 

Answer. Lamecli Duvall; clerk War Department; residing in this 
city. 

Question. At any time were you in the employment of the Freed- 
men's Bureau, and if so, in what capacity ? 

Answer. I was employed in the Freedmen's Bureau as chief clerk of 



463 

the prosecntion branch of the daim division, from March, 1860, until 
March, 187'J. 

Question. At the time yon left that office, iu what condition were the 
records of it ? 

Answer, x\t the time I left the office the records were in as fair con- 
dition as could be expected from the limited force employed iu the office. 
There was no difficulty in getting any information from the record. 
Owing to reduction at different times of the clerical force it became 
necessary to simplify our records, but all the material facts pertaining 
to the cases could be obtained at the time I left the office. 

^ Cross-examination. 

By the Judqe- Advocate : 
Question. Had you anything to do with the disbursing branch of 
that office '? 
Answer. No, sir. 

By the Court : 

Question. Do you know a person named J. W. Shaw residing in this 
city, and did you impart to him any information in reference to the rec- 
ords of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 1 

Answer. I am acquainted with a Mr. Shaw, but I am not familiar 
with his initials. I have no knowledge of his Christian name. I pre- 
sume it is the Shaw referred to as having written a letter in connection 
with this case. I have had conversations with him after my discharge 
from the Bureau, and those conversations I cannot recall at this time. 
Whether I made use of the statements that are contained in the letter, 
I cannot say. I was discharged from the Bureau, myself as well as 
others, and I was somewhat vexed, thinking our treatment was unfair ; 
and 1 may have made statements to him. 

Question, fs this gentleman, Shaw, now employed in the Second Au- 
ditor's Office I 

Answer. I believe he is, to the best of my knowledge. I have not 
seen him for some time. The last time I saw him he was a clerk in the 
office of the Second Auditor of the Treasury. 

The testimony of the witness was then read to him and by him pro- 
nounced to be correct as recorded. 

Seth a. Terry, a witness called by the accused, was then sworn and 
examined as follows : 

Direct examination. 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. State your full name, residence, and occupation. 

Answer. Seth A. Terry, 419 O street, northwest, Washington ; general 
book-keeper at the Second National Bank. 

Question. Were you at any time employed in the Freedmen's Bureau, 
and if so, at what time and in what capacity ? 

Answer. The date of my appointment was the first of August, 1865. 
I was discharged by the Secretary of War, 31st July, 187li. 

Question. What was your employment there"? 

Answer. When I first went into the Bureau principally copying, and 
afterward in charge of the cash-books and disbursements made in Gen- 
eral Balloch's office, and continued in that capacity up to his being 



464 

« 
relieved, and then in charge of it up to General Howard's tnruiug it 
over to Major Brown, and had charge of it then and np to the time of 
its transfer to the War Department. 

Question. Were yoa in the habit of drawing cliecks for General Bal- 
loch ? 

Answer, Part of the time — up to the time the work got so great that 
there was a man employed there for that and to till out vouchers. 

Question. Making up his accounts for him ? 

AnsAver. Yes, sir. 

Question. Abstracts t 

Answer. Yes, sir. Until the work got sd great afterward I simply 
examined tbe vouchers and gave them to a clerk to abstract and fill up, 
but I examined the vouchers. 

Question. Do you know anything about what was called retained 
bounty in the office f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. AVhat do you know about tbat ? 

Answer. I know I received a check from O.Brown — 1 think General 
O. Brown, stationed at Richniiond — containing a list of the names of 
l)arties to whom retained bounty was due. We commenced afterward, 
on evidence being furnished of parties having amounts due them there, 
either the party himself or the heirs of the partj', giving the name and 
the regiment. We drew a check, and sent it to the agent at the nearest 
place to pay them, and vouchers were taken in duplicate ; one copy sent 
to the Third Auditor's Office, and one copy kept in the office. 

Question. Was there any secrecy in connection "with this matter in 
General Balloch's office, or was it done the same as other business was 
done ? 

Answer. The same as other business. 

Question. In the usual current of business ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. These claims were paid as they were presented and ap- 
proved like other claims'? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Were the accounts for them made up in the same way '? 

Answer. Made up in the same way. 

Question. Presented in the same way ! 

Answer. Presented in the same way. 

Question. Do you know of his making actual payments ? 

Answer. Y"es ; I drew the checks myself very often, and when I did 
not, they were drawn by a clerk under my supervision. 

Question. Were the vouchers filled up by you in any instance ? 

Answer. Most all of them were filled up by me. 

Question. And the whole transaction was the ordinary public usual 
transaction of the office ? 

Answer. It was. 

The Judge-Advocate. I respectfully submit to the court that this 
line of examination is objectionable in that it is leading. In the ques- 
tions the gentleman has propounded, almost every question he has asked 
this witness has been a suggestive one, and unless the counsel can vary 
his questions so as to ask them in an unobjectionable way, I shall feel 
under the necessity of formally interposing an objection to the court. 
When I had the examinatiou-in-chief, it increased the length of my ex- 
amination some, because 1 felt it necessary to be guided by the usual 
rules of evidence in the examination. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : I have informed the court in 



465 

the other instance it was done entirely to save time, but I can alter the 
qnestion. 

Question. \Yhat do you know about the alleged erroneous money bal- 
ance at the beginning of the month, as recited in a letter of the Secre- 
tary of War to Congress, which I will hand you f [Copy of letter handed 
witness.] 

Answer. I have looked at that letter. The letter that I wrote, I 
think, to General Howard explains as fully as I can here. In some of 
these cases I took down the records to Dr. Brodhead and showed him 
how we had l)een keeping the account. We kept a little book called 
daily statement-book, and that book was opened simply for the purpose 
of not overdrawing at these places ; it was not a final account with those 
banks, because they sent the statements and we checked them off on 
another book that we had, but it was in order to know wheu to send 
funds to any of those places. I asked him to give me a list of these 
cases, and I think he gave me eight. 

Question. Eight of those balances'? 

Answer. No, not these balances. These are consolidated. Those 
were a written list that he had of so much overdrawn in New York, and 
so much overdrawn in New Orleans, and so much in Louisville. This 
is consolidated to the amounts overdrawn in all of the places ; in New 
Orleans in two cases toward the latter part of the month, within one or 
two days of the end of the month. We sent $50,000 there, and the mo- 
ment of sending it to New Orleans we charged it on this daily statement- 
book to New Orleans. It did not get there, as their statement after- 
ward showed, until the fifth or sixth of the following month, and the 
statement from them of the general balance credited at the end of the 
month would show a discrepancy of $30,000 or -$40,000 ; and there were 
some checks outstanding. In New York how there came to be a balance 
is more than lean understand, because our statement-books show that in 
our statement from New York at most any time we had from 840,000 
to $50,000 and $100,000 in outstanding checks. 

In Louisville there were only two months, I think. That grew out of 
a mistake of my own. In the morning I woMld usually take up the 
check-books and add up the checks drawn the day previous and sub- 
tract it from the amount in Louisville, so as to make the businiess up to 
the close of that day, or up to the close of the day before; and there 
was a check drawn to the order of Colonel Runkle that I did not take up at 
Louisville ; it was some five thousand odd dollars I believe, but I did not 
discover it until I had got a statement from Louisville and found out 
there was a discrepancy between my statements and theirs, and in 
checking off I found this afterward and made the deduction. The 
check-book, I believe, is here, and shows when I took it up, but it was 
not intentional on ray part ; it is a discrepancy which any one is liable 
to make. I corrected it as m&a as I discovered it. 

In regard to the amount overdrawn in Washington, in our daily 
statement-book, we did not keep the account in Washington. I knew 
that the balance ior which General Balloch was responsible we sup- 
posed was either there or in the hands of different parties sent to pay 
cases. At the end of the month there was a check, perhaps, sent to 
the cashier of a bank out in Iowa, and we did not take a list of all of 
them ; the account-current would not have been large enough to hold 
them. A man having a bounty account-current in hand would come in 
and say, "Terry, where are those funds?" I would say, so much in 
New York; so much in Memphis; so much this place; so much that 
place; balance in Washington. General Balloch never told me to do 
30 HC 



466 

tliat way, nor General Howard; bnt I did it in preference to making a 
list on the account-current. An account-current would not bav^e been 
large enough, because very ofteu there were forty or fifty checks sent out 
to different iiarties. 

Then part of it arose out of the investment of bonds, and then when we 
got the transfer checks we would draw sometimes as high as $200,000 
or 8300,000 in checks, and General Balloch would take those checks 
to the Treasury Department, and we would wait for a transfer check to 
be sent to us sometimes three and four days afterward. If that should 
happen to be — I don't know that it was ; I have never looked at it — if it 
should happen to be about the last of the month, it would be charged 
against us up to date, and those other things would be credited to us. 

Then there was also partial payments on contracts. A man would do 
some work, and instead of a voucher being made out, we would let him 
sign vouchers, and hold his memorandum receipt for the amount we 
gave him — let him sign vouchers for fear of death, and let him sign 
memorandum receipts for the amount he got. That, of course, came 
out of Washington. But wo would not credit it on our cash-book until 
the work was completed, or enough to make out a voucher for it. 

Question. Did the Second Auditor's certificates enter into your cash- 
account '? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Explain about that. 

Answer. The Auditor's certificates, the moment they came into our 
room, were taken u])on our book as cash. After we would collect quite 
a number of them they would be sent to the Paj master-General, and 
that amount of course we always reported as in the Treasury, and we 
did not report the amount of the certificates in the hands of the Pay- 
master-General awaitiug the check ; we did not report it there, but 
reported it in the Treasury. Some months, at the end of the month, 
we would have as high as $200,000 or $300,000. At the time of the 
defalcation of Major Hodge, I think we had $167,000 — something like 
that amount — of Auditor's certificates that were in the hands of the 
Paymaster; but they h ltd been taken upon our cash-book as cash on 
the day received. 

Question. When you said you explained this to Mr. Brodhead, did 
you mean the Second Comptroller 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. At what time was that, do you recollect ? 

Answer. I do not. It was some three or four months ago. It was 
a couple of days after 1 wrote my letter. I think that I went with the 
books down to show them to him. 

Question. Do you remember of certain instances in the i)ayment of 
bounties where it was stated that the checks had been returned to Gen- 
eral Balloch ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you remember the names of any of the parties ? 

Answer. I remember of two. I don't remember of those during Gen- 
eral Balloch's administratiou. I remember those during General How- 
ard's. 

Question. Do yon remember a man by the name of Ambrose? 

Answer. Y'^es, sir ; and a man by the name of Babbitt. 

Question. Do you remember the amounts in those instances "? 

Answer. One was $208,50, the otlier Avas $70.25, I believe. 

Question. What was it about — the case of the $208.50 ? 

Answer. At the same time that that was received there was $5.20. re- 



467 

ceived for the sale of some ofiice-faruiture ; I believe the mouey was to 
be takeu up on the refugees' and freedmcn's account, and General 
Howard took down the two books to the Treasury- ; he kept separate 
books, one for the refugees and freed men, and one for the bounty; 
and he took down this 8208.50 and the $5.20 and he got them on the 
wrong books, and I did not discover it until he came back; instead of 
putting the $5.20 on the refugees and freedmen's he had it on the bounty, 
and he had the $208.50 on the refngees and freedmen's book — or the 
Treasury clerk. It was all right on our cash-book at the office. After- 
ward, in tundug over this money to Major Brown, General Howard drew 
his check on the Treasury on account of the bounty for the difterence be- 
tween $208.50 and $5.20, and corrected it in that way. 

Question. He paid the money over to Major Brown 1 

Answer. Yes, sir ; and since that I think he also paid it to tiie Second 
Auditor ; so he has paid it twice. I understood that he did. 

Question. From the absence of records I cannot fix the names, but 
General Balloch testified that in a certain instance you called his atten- 
tion to some cases — some three cases — where money had come back upon 
notice received from the War Department that the money had been re- 
turned in one case. Have you any recollection about that ? 

Answer. That was this James Eobbi^n's case and this Ambrose ; those 
were the cases I spoke of — the $208.50 and the $70.25. Those are the two 
cases. But it was not General Balloch, I think it was Captain Sladen, 
who spoke to me about it. He said they had got a letter from the Sec- 
retary of War, asking General Howard to pay overcertain moneys in the 
case of $208.50 I think, and they said that it was stated that he had taken 
up the mouey on the refugees and freedmen's book. I went ni> there one 
night and showed him how the thing happened, and showed him it had 
been turned over to Major Brown ; and I told him, says I, there was 
another case at the same time, naming Bobbin's case. " Why," says he, 
" General Howard has been ordered by the War Department to turn 
that over, and has already done it, because he could not find out he had 
ever turned it over to Major Brown." 

Question. Did you know anything about the case of Harriet Walker? 

Answer. I did not know anything of that case until the other day I 
went to look for Captain Sladen, and it seems that Harriet A. Walker, 
the widow of Pins Walker, had money sent to her. There were three 
or four cases, I think, sent at the same time. The letter on file at Major 
McMillan's office shows when the check was sent, and shows the num- 
ber of it; money sent to Overly, and I do not remember any money 
coming back in the case. Of course, if the record shows it it is a different 
thing, but I do not remember anything of that kind. In fact I do not 
recollect of the case, although they called my attention to it the other 
day, and I went and searched the records. 

Question. If the checks did come back would the matter naturally 
come to your knowledge? 

Answer. It would have to for the very reason that I knew when a 
check was paid by the statement from New York, and if this check was 
drawn to the order of an agent and was indorsed o^er, I would have to 
know it. 

Question. Do you know where checks have come back that have not 
been accounted for ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Did you give bond as a disbursing-clerk ? 

Answer. I did after General Balloch was relieved, and when General 
Howard took charge, I gave bond for $5,000. 



468 

Question. Do you know with regard to General Howard's diligence 
in the perlbrniauce of bis duties as Commissioner ! 

Answer. I have never questioned that at all. I have always found 
him very active and always anxious to do all he could for any claimant 
that wrote requesting that his monej^ be sent to him, or claimed that he 
had not had it. In fact, sometimes when it has been questioned about 
the claim-agent being interested. General Howard has said: "Well, we 
must examine the case and see that justice is done them." I know he 
was always very anxious for that. 

Question. What was the condition of the records of your office ? 

Answer. As far as the money-records are concerned, complete. I 
alwaj'S so considered them. Until the Secretary of War ordered that 
we keep certain " letters received " and certain " letters sent " in our 
office, we did not have the force to keep a copy of the letters received ; 
neither were the letter-press books copied into journals for the want of 
force. 

Question. Can you state a little more in detail about the records of 
your office ? 

Answer. In regard to my work, when we would receive from any 
agent South, vouchers either for services or for repairs of school-build- 
ings, that would be examined by me and put in my desk ; and if the clerk 
was not busy at the time,Iwould hand it over to him to till npand abstract, 
and draw a check for; and a list of the checks, if there were many, 
would be given to the check-clerk. When there happened to be only one 
at a time, sometimes I would draw it and sometimes the check-clerk 
Avould draw it. That would be entered then by him upon the cash- 
book and the abstracts made from the cash-book. At the end of 
the mouth the account-current was always made out by me. I 
knew less about the bounty work. When certificates came in I knew 
that they were taken up as cash, after they were entered on the cash- 
book. The abstracts were not made from the cash-book, but they were 
made from the certificates, • and then the two were compared, the total 
footings of each ; then the abstra(;ts or receipts would be added up in 
the cash-book, and the same way with the abstract of expenditures. At 
the end of the month we would readily see the balance that he was re- 
sponsible for, and I used to give him the places where it was deposited. 
Also, jackets were put on the certificates, with the blue letter in Mr. 
Drew's office, that came into our room, and the attorney's fees were paid 
first ; and very often when memorandums were made on the wrapper of 
the address of the party, we would, to the nearest agent, send a list 
sometimes of those cases. Most always, I believe, the attorneys notified 
the claimants when they got their fees, and gave them to understand 
that the bounty was ready for them. 

Question. Were the books under your charge, particularly the money- 
accounts 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Were those books anil records in good or bad order when 
you left? 

Answer. Good, I considered. 

Cross-examination by the Judge-Advocate : 

(Question. What sort of monthly reports or weekly reports were made 
to the Treasurer of the United States, or to the Treasury Department, of 
the balances on hand, and who made them ? 

Answer. I made them. 

Question. By whom were they signed ? 



469 

Answer. Signed by General Ballocli. 

Question. To whom made? 

Answer. One went to the Secretary of tbe Treasury, and for a long 
time one went to the Secretary of War. 

Question. Weekly or monthly? 

Answer. Weekly. 

Question. What did those reports contain? 

Answer. Just a copy from my daily-statement book. 

Question. What sort of copy ? 

Answer. At the end of the week whatever I reported on the state- 
ments at Louisville and these ])laces I entered upon this report that 1 sent 
to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Question. What did you state on those reports as actually in these 
places ; what description of money 1 

Answer. 1 said deposited at Louisville, naming the bank ; on deposit 
with the United States depository at Louisville; on deposit at First ISTa- 
tional Bank at Memphis ; on deposit with the assistant treasurer at Saint 
Louis. 

Question. Was th«t money against which checks had already been 
drawn or not ? 

Answer. No, sir. It seems to have been in the case at Louisville where 
I failed to take out that check— the $5,000— but it was not meant to have 
been against any check that was drawn. 

Question. When you received a Second Auditor's certificate of the 
amount of the bounty-claim, what did you have to do with that certifi- 
cate ? 

Answer. It came from Mr. Drew's room to us ; it was taken right up 
on the cash-book as cash. 

Question. Then what did you do with it? 

Answer. It was then abstracted and a list of a great many made out 
and sent to the Paj master-General for his check. 

Question. On the same day ? 

Answer. No, sir; sometimes it would be a week when the work was 
very heavy and we were recei^'iug one hundred a day, perhaps every 
three days. 

Question. How do you know those were taken up as cash in the re- 
ports of General Balloch? 

Answer. The abstract was made out from certificates received, and 
they were copied first on the book and then handed over to another 
clerk who abstracted them, and one's footing agreeing with the other it 
was supposed they were taken up. » 

Question. That is the way yon arrived at that knowledge ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. When you got a check from the Paymaster-General, or from 
a paymaster in his office, in settlement of bounty-certificates, what was 
done with it ? 

Answer. If it was a check on the assistant treasurer at New York it 
was sent there and charged to the assistant treasurer at New York. 

Question. Do you know why these certificates were taken up as " cash" 
before you actually got the checks ? 

Answer. I know of no other way as book-keeper in doing so. 

Question. Then, your weekly reports to the Secretary of the Treasury 
in this respect were not truthful reports ? 

Answer. No, sir ; they were not strictly true. 

Question. Now, state what you mean when you say the account cur- 
rent would not have been larae enough to hold all the checks. 



470 

Auswer. I meau this, that a party having a bounty due him, as, for 
instance, iu Iowa, and he writes to General Howard asking that his 
money be sent him. We draw a check the latter part of the mouth, or 
any time, and send it to the cashier of a national bank at this place, re- 
questing that he see that the mau is paid. iSTow for us to have taken 
these checks where they had uot received vouchers — the account-cur- 
rent shows a balance for which General Howard is responsible, and 
some of those were kept iu the cashier's hands, and also iu some of the 
ageut's hands — if I should make a list of all those there would not 
have been room on the account-current to hold them. So at Newberu, 
we sent down a check to pay several cases, and the vouchers have uot 
come back, the money is out, and I have got to report that money to 
the Secretary of War, and report it in the hands of the agent ; and I 
have got to report all of them in that way until we get receipted vouch- 
ers. 

Question. Did you not always do so ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. What did you do ? 

Answer. Eeported them in the hands of the United States Treasurer, 
at Washington. These parties were charged on the book with the cash. 
We kept an account with them. One reason why it was not done, it was 
to save trouble in sending to Louisville. He would write, sending a 
list, perhaps, of one hundred cases. We would draw a check for the full 
amount, and send the vouchers with the check. Those cases we charged 
to him on the book ; they were not all received back at the same time, 
and when they were received back they were marked paid such a date, 
opposite the name on the book. For us to have gone over at the end 
of each month, and incked out a few here and a few elsewhere that were 
not paid, it would have taken a great> deal of time. 

Question. Did you report all that money in the Treasury at Wash- 
ington, instead of the depository at Louisville, for example 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Have you any records or memoranda in j'our cash-books, any 
means of ascertaining exactly how much money was thus reported iu 
the Treasury here, when in fact it was being used for other purposes, in 
the payment of bounties, &c. 

Answer. It had been charged to Colonel Eunkle ; and as fast as we 
received cases back, the balance in his hands was there to pay boun- 
ties. I don't know as it was used for anything else. 

Question. The question is, have you any memoranda or cash-books, or 
any data by which .you can fix from week to week the amount of money 
that you reported in the Treasury, when, in point of fact, checks were 
drawn for the disbursement of that money '? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Then you cannot swear whether or not those statements 
are true ! (Referring to balances on pages 1 and 2 of part 2d of Exhibit 
B) 

Auswer. No ; I cannot swear that they are true. This book that was 
kept shows the amount with Colonel Eunkle, and the date opposite the 
name shows Avhen the vouchers were received back, and it could be 
picked out, the amount that Colonel Eunkle held in his hands at the 
end of any month, but it would take a good deal of time. It could be 
picked out, now, of the book which is at the War Department, and I 
suppose it is. 

Question. You say the accouuts-current at the end of each mouth were 
always made by you ? 



471 

Answer. Not the bounty. 

Questiou. What description of accouuts ? 

Answer. The refugees and freedmen's school-funds and the retained 
bounty. 

Question. Including payments made in the offices at headquarters of 
the Bureau ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Including pay-rolls ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. How did you make those pay-rolls; from what description or 
data f 

Answer. \Ye would make up the pay-roll the same as we did the last, 
unless some clerks had been discharged; if so we could drop their 
names. 

Question. Did the pay-rolls include only the clerks? 

Answer. It included messengers and it included hostlers ; we had 
some hostlers on our rolls. 

Question. How would they be noted on your rolls ? 

Answer. Their names would be under the head of their occupation. 

Question. Under the head of clerks, then, you would only have the 
names of those who were actually on clerical duty '1 

Answer. And the heads of divisions. Mr. Drew, and for a while Gen- 
eral Whittlesey, were paid $200 a month, before it was settled as to 
whether they would receive the pay and emoluments of an officer of their 
former rank. They were paid on the pay-roll. 

Question. But those who were marked as clerks were only those who 
were on clerical duty ? 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Why did you consider the money-records were always com- 
plete ? 

Answer. Because it was easy to ascertain at any time the amount that 
had been expended for schools and the amount that had been expended 
for clerical force, and for agents, and the amount for which he was still 
responsible to the Treasury. 

Question. Suppose it was desired to trace whether a payment had 
been made to a particular bounty claimant, what records had you by 
which such payment could be traced? 

Answer. AVe had a book with a list of certificates, and if a name 
should come in, for instance John Jones, we would turn to the J's and 
find out whether he belonged to the same company and regiment as the 
one iiaid, and if the one on the book recorded " paid " corresponds with 
the one asked about, we would see whether a check had been drawn to 
his order, and if it was drawn to the order of the claimaut, and drawn 
on Louisville, we would look at the Louisville statement and see if paid ; 
or drawn on New York, we would look to the Kew York statement and 
see whether it had been paid ; and if it was drawn to the order of the 
agent, and we wish to know more about it, we would write to the agent 
to know whether he had paid the money to this party. W^e had state- 
ments from them of the cases they paid also, every month ; and we could 
look at that and see if it was on the list. 

Question. Those would be the onlj' records by which you could ascer- 
tain that fact ? 

Answer. I believe .so. I believe that was all that was needed, too. 

Question. When did you commence receiving statements from agents 
that they had made payments ? 

Answer. I do not know the date. 



• 472 

Qnestiou. Within what year ; bow recently ? 

Answer. It was, I think, in the year 1870. I know at first they did 
not ; I wonkl not be positive about that. 

Question. What part of the year 1870 ? 

Answer. I could not tell you. 

Question. In the spring, fall, or winter ? 

Answer. I don't know ; the records will show, probably. I could not 
say positively'. 

Question. Is it not a fact that the letter-press-books where money 
was sent in bulk to an agent to make payment, do not in many instances 
show the claimant to whom money was intended to be sent! 

Answer. ]L^rot to my knowledge. 

Question. Was it not the case that ft-equently when money was seut 
in bulk to agents, that lists were inclosed ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. And only a record kept in the letter-press books that a list 
was inclosed ! 

Answer. It says : I inclose check number so and so, on such a i)lace 
for such amount to pay fifty-four cases; list inclosed ; and ou the next 
page usually those cases, the list of cases, would be. 

Question. Was it not the fact that frequently those lists were not 
spread upon the record of the letter-press-books ? 

Answer. Not to my knowledge. 

Question. Are you prepared to swear that they were invariably spread 
upon the records ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Y^ou will swear to that fact "? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In the letter-press-books! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

By the Court : 

Question. I understand you are now a book-keeper by profession "? 

Answer. I do not know that I am, by profession ; I am general book- 
keeper at the Second National Bank ; have supervision of the books 
there. 

Question. Were vou at the time of being employed as such by Gen- 
eral Balloch ! 

Answer. I do not now consider myself a professional book-keeper. 

Question. You keep the books of the bank ? 

Answer. Well, I am pretty well posted in regard to debit and credit 
accounts, and have learned it practically more than theoretically. 

Question. You have been seven years at it ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. You probably underrate your own ability. 

Answer. Well, they have been perfectly satisfied with my work there. 

Question. At the bank ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Eeferring to the figures on pages 1 and 2, part 2 of Exhibit 
B, did you know at all times during 18G7, 18G8, 18Gt), 1870, and 1871, 
where, and in what sort of funds, the balances reported on General Bal- 
loch's account-current were ? 

Answer. Y'es, sir. 

Question. Conld he have taken any part of these for his private use 
without your knowledge ! 

Answer. No, sir. 



473 

Question. Did lie take any of the funds belonging- to the United 
States or to claimants for bounty for his private use, to your knowl- 
edge "? 

Answer. Xo, sir. 

Question. Did General Howard f 

xVnswer. IsTo, sir. 

Question. When you submitted your books and explained your cash 
balances to the Second Comptroller, as testitied to, was he satisfied ! 

Answer. Perfectly. 

Question. Did he express his satisfaction in any written form ? If so, 
can you produce it ? 

Answer. iTo, sir; our conversation was verbal ; I opened the books 
and showed him m^'self. 

Question. Where was the retained and irregular bounty-money kept ? 

Answer. o^J^ational Bank of the Republic, in Washington, the United 
States depository here. 

Question. On what institution were the checks, used in payment of 
these retained bounties, drawn? 

Answer. The ISTational Bank of the Republic. 

Question. In the table of difference of balances on pages 1 and 2, 
jiart 2d, Exhibit B, liave you reason to believe or not that any of them 
arose from any corrupt diversion of the public funds ? 

Answer. Xo, sir. 

Examination ended. 

The court then, at 3.05 o'clock, ailjourned until to-morrow at 11 o'clock 
a. m. 



THIRTY-SIXTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

^Yas]lingfon, D. C, April 20, 1871—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A.; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George W. Gettv, Third Artillerv, U. S. A.: 
G. Col. J. J. Revnolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, tl. S. A.; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate; 
also. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. 
Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read. 

John T. Vinson, a former witness, was present, and heard his testi- 
mony read, after which he said : * 

The records of the Third Auditor's Oftice show that General Balloch 



^J k 



474 

returned liis retaiued-bounty accouuts with bis money account from 
December, 1865, to January, 1806, on the otb of Marcb, 1860. I bave a 
tabubir statement bere showing the balance which be aclinowledged on 
hand and the amount he claimed to bave advanced by the vouchers 
accompanying the account. This tabular statement is the date on 
which the accounts were rendered. 

The witness then read the statement, as follows : 

The records in Third Auditor's Office show that George W. Balloch returned money 
account, " irreguLar retained bounty :" 



Period of time. 






o" 



S'*'^ 



g c,a-3 
J ° a 2 

"rt cj o a 



S-SS 



December, 1865, andJanuarv, 1866 , 

February aud Marcb, 1866 .". 

April, 1 fiOo 

May, 1866 

June, 1866 

July and August, 1866 

September, 1866 

October, 1866 , 

November, 1866 

December, 1866 

January, 18G7 

February, 1867 

March, 1867 

April, 1867 

May, 1867 

June, 1867 

July, 1867 

August, 1867 

September, 1867 

October, 1867 

November, 1867 

December, 1867 

January, 1868, to February, 1869.. 
June, 1868, not received 



Mar. .^1866 
Apr. 30, 1866 
May 16, 1866 
July 19, 1866 
July 20, 1866 
Sept. 17, 1866 
Oct. fi, 1866 
Nov. 17,1866 
Dec. 22,1866 
Jan. 23,1867 
Feb. 28,1867 
Mar. 7,1867 
Apr. 15,1867 
May 14,1867 
June 14, 1867 
July 17, 1867 
Aug. 9,1867 
Oct. 9, 1867 
Oct. lii, 1867 
Nov. 8, 1867 
Dec. 12,1867 
Jan. 13,1868 
Feb. 28,1869 



$112, 188 11 
110,969 78 
105, 840 81 
97, 778 54 
94, 365 57 
91,423 29 
91,223 29 
90,514 97 
89, 788 64 
73, 355 33 
66, 072 02 
65, 938 69 
59,425 40 
49, 565 43 
46, 548 77 
44, 985 44 
40, 918 79 
39, 502 46 
39, 127 46 
37,249 14 
35, 432 48 
35, 107 48 
25, 860 17 



S208 33 

1, 218 33 
5, 128 97 

8, 062 27 

3, 412 97 

2, 942 28 
200 00 
708 32 
726 33 

16, 433 31 

7,283 31 

133 33 

6, 513 29 

9, 859 97 
3,016 66 
1, 563 33 

4, 066 65 
1, 416 33 

375 00 
1, 878 32 
1,816 66 

325 00 
8,447 31 



Note. — Abstracts and vouchers transferred to Second Auditor for settlement, April 7, 1870. 

Those entries are in my handwriting as to the dates of the receipts of 
the accounts and the amount or balances on band and the amount dis- 
bursed; the subsequent entry is in the handwriting of Mr. Oulahan, 
clerk. Third Auditor's Office, showing that the account from J^inuary, 
1808, to February, 1809, was returned to the Third Auditor's Office Feb- 
ruary 28, 1809, showing a balance of $25,800.17, and claiming to have 
disbursed during that time $8,447.31', with this note, "June, 1868, not 
received." Now if you take the balance on hand of December accounts, 
1867, $35,107.48, with the balance on band which he acknowledged in 
bis February account of 1809, which was $25,800.17, it would show a dis- 
bursement during that time of $9,247.31. The amount which Mr. Oula- 
han has inserted as being involved is $8,447.31, with the June account 
not in. That would include the vouchers which ought to cover $800 ; 
that June account ought to show a disbursement to carry the record 
right, if it was true, of $800. Mr. Oulahan remarks, " from January, 
1808, to February, 1869, a balance of $25,860.17." That is in the rendition 
of the last account to February, 1809, showing the disbursement of 
$8,447.31, with a little note at the bottom, " June, 1808, not received." 
Now to have General Balloch's statement correct that June account 
ouffht to show the disbursement of $800. 



475 

By the Court : 

Questiou. There remains that much to be accounted for ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. There is a hipse in that ? 

Answer. Yes ; a lapse in that. 

Then on the record in the Third Auditor's Oiiflce is this entry : "Abstracts 
and vouchers," inclosing in brackets "entire accounts;'' "abstracts and 
vouchers transferred to Second Auditor for settlement, April 7, 1870 ;" 
that was after I left the oflice. That was the official entry. 

Now I can fix very near, I think, the time I told General Balloch that 
it was useless for him to render any accounts to the office, because I was 
unable to settle them. 

I find that we reported his first general account, covering the period 
from June, 1865, to September, 18G6, and it was returned from the Second 
Comptroller to the Tliird Auditor's Office approved, January 11, 1807. 
It was subsequent to that time, I am sure, so that I must have exam- 
ined, and there must have been in the office, the accounts that had been 
received for the entire year ISGO and probably a portion of the year 
1867. 

Question. With the vouchers i 

Answer. Yes, sir, with the vouchers ; because I am sure if the vouchers 
even for the subsequent period had not accompanied the accounts I 
should have called General Balloch's attention to the fact that he was 
rendering an account-current without the vouchers accompanying it. 
In fact I could not have made this memorandum of amount disbursed, 
unless I had had reference to the abstract and vouchers, because they 
would show what he had paid out. That entry is in my handwriting on 
the ledger. 

The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

Seth a. Terry a former witness, was present, and having heard his 
testimony read, said : 

I wish to correct the record. The record shows I received a check 
from O. Brown, commissioner, at liichmond. I meant to have said that 
the book containing the list of cases was received with a check to cover 
that list. [See pages 1 and 2, part 2d of Exhibit B.] Yesterday, in 
looking at the book that was handed me, I thought those amounts were 
consolidated with amounts of overdrafts in all the places ; but after I 
had given my testimony I noticed that in the list of overdrafts in the 
Treasury it says that there are overdrafts ranging from $100 to $13,000. 
It was among that list that Mr. Brodhead gave me these cases. I said 
those were consolidated, and I made a misstatement there; it does not 
give the figures for those different places ; it says they only range so and 
so. 

The record shows that in regard to the Ambrose check in afterward 
turning the money over to Major Brown, General Howard drew a check 
on the bounty-fund, and as he had deposited that money in the Eefugees 
and Freedmen's book, of course he drew a check on the Eefugees and 
Freedmen's account at the Treasury to make it straight. 

1 did not always make a weekly statement. It was always made from 
the books in my desk, and I generally made it, but at times the check- 
clerk did it. 

I am really not positive as to whether General Balloch signed that or 
General Howard ; the records themselves will show. The statements, 
I suppose, are on tile ; but I am inclined to think now General Howard 
signed those statements — the weekly statement of the balances. When 



476 

a check was drawn on any depository to go out with the voucher, it was, 
of course, deducted from that depository aud reported in the Treasury. 
A question was asked me yesterday in regard to my swearing that a 
list was always made out with those cases. I meant they were usually 
made out. I see in the first part of my evidence I had it " usually," 
and afterward, when I was asked, I said " invariably," but 1 had the idea 
of generally in my head. AVheu a great many cases were sent, and a 
check was sent for a certain amount to pay fifty-four cases, if a list of 
the cases was not there, there are books that were turned over. If it 
was drawn to the order of Colonel Eunkle, we have a book which shows, 
and he would be charged with just fifty-four cases, aud the check will 
just cover those footings. That can be ascertained by referring to the 
records. 

The witness then pronounced his testimony to be correct as recorded. 

The proceedings of yesterday were then approved. 

First Lieut. Joseph A. Sladen, Fourteenth Infantry, a witness 
called by the ac<;used, then appeared before the court, and being duly 
sworn, was examined as follows : 

By the Accused, (through his counsel:) 

Question. Please state your full name, rank, aud station, and the du- 
ties upon which you are engaged. 

Answer. Jos. A. Sladen ; first lieutenant Fourteenth Infantry ; bre- 
vet captain, and aid-de-camp to General Howard; stationed in Wash- 
ington. 

Question. When did you become aid to General Howard ? 

Answer. In November, 1864. 

Question. Have you been his aid ever since ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. And on duty with him all the time ? 

Answer. Daily, almost. 

Question. I wish to ask you first as to the attention paid by General 
Howard to the proper duties of his office ; what was the degree of ddi- 
gence exercised by him as Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 1 

Answer. From 18G5 until about the first of January, 1869, we had our 
office in the city, corner Nineteenth and I streets. Dnring that time, 
and he has always, since he took that position, been very active, and 
during that time he was at work from the time he got up iu the morn- 
ing until he went to bed at night, and his office was besieged constantly 
during those years by a crowd of people of all classes and color, who 
came to see him so much that he could not attend to the business of 
the office during the allotted business-hours alone. There were mem- 
bers of Congress and others who came to see him to have friends de- 
tailed into the Bureau, or civilians appointed ; or there were others who 
came to obtain the restoration of their farms and their estates in the 
South ; then there were others who came to obtain assistance from the 
Bureau — colored men — aud transportation for them, and to obtain the 
assistance of the Bureau in taking care of them. At the close of the war, 
in destitute portions of the South the Bureau rendered assistance not 
only iu transporting negroes who had been collected in camps at various 
places, as at Hamptou, Va., and at Norfolk, Va., and Wilmington and New 
Berne and Beaufort, and other places, not only iu assisting those colored 
people, giving them transportation to these plantations, where they could 
be self-supporting, but also rendered aid to those who owned plantations 
in supplying them, for the time being, with the necessaries of life aud 



477 

clotbiiig; iiud tlien, besides these classes, were persons who came aud oc- 
cupied a great deal of time. There were the poor aud iudigeut blacks. 
They were crowding there all the time; some to obtain food aud cloth- 
ing; others to hud lost parents or lost children; others asking means 
for transportation to rejoin their families, and all kinds and classes of 
people came there constantly. The office was besieged from morning 
until night ; and if oflicers of the Bureau got the attention of the gen- 
eral it was necessary to interrupt these conversations, where these peo- 
\)\e were waiting to interview the general on these matters. During the 
first year that he was Commissioner of the Bureau I lived in his family, 
and 1 know that he had no office-hours. His office was wherever he was. 
His house was besieged in the evening until late at night, frequently, by 
those who came to transact business with him. After 1SG9, I think it 
was in December of 18G8, our office was moved out to the Howard Uni- 
versity building, and there the general escaped the crowd. Then, at 
that time, pro])erty had been restored a great deal to original owners in 
the South, aud matters were becoming settled, and transportation for 
colored people, I think, been cut oft', excejjt in special cases, or it was 
soon after cut oft", and the general was able to give more time, during 
otBce-hours, to the business of the office. I never heard a statement 
that the general was not active and zealous in the matter of his duties 
there, and I know that he was constantly hard at work, sometimes more 
so than those of us who were with him thought was necessary. He was 
always diligent, always active, and he displayed zeal and enthusiasm in 
this new work to which he was assigned, that those of us who had been 
associated with him had not credited him with. 

Question. How was it with regard to makiug personal inspections 
here and elsewhere ? 

Answer. As to formal inspections, of course he made no formal in- 
spections, except iu specific cases of complaiut ; but he was constantly 
in and out of the various offices, and was-daily in consultation with the 
chiefs of each of the divisions, and was in person, frequently, in their 
rooms calling for specific information, and Avas in consultation with 
them as to their methods of doing business all the time every day. 

Question. How was it about making inspections away from Washing- 
ton, personally? 

Answer. Inspections iu the South, of the offices of the agents and 
assistant commissioners, with their subordinates, were very frequent. 
When the Bureau was first established, iu 1805, General Strong, who 
had been upon the general's staft", and was upon the general's staft", aud 
had been inspector-general of the Army of Tennessee, was detailed into 
the new Bureau as inspector-general. He was constantly making these 
trips. My recollection is, that he never spent a longer time in Wash- 
ington than seemed to be necessary to make up his reports. At the 
time he was there, I think, General Fullertou, who had served upon the 
general's staft" as assistant adjutant-general Fourth Corps, was detailed 
here as adjutant-general aud made some inspections. I think General 
Whittlesey made some inspections, but I am not sure about that, iu 
1866, in the spring or summer. 

Question. 1 asked you about personal inspections. 

Answer. Well, in 1865, as soon as he had organized his office, he 
started oft" and made an extended tour of inspection through the South., 
I went with him myself to the State of Virginia, and left him at Kich- 
mond, and returned after we had been in the eastern and western por- 
tions of the State. He went on to South Carolina and Xorth Carolina, 
and how much farther I do not know. He was gone several weeks on 



478 

that trip. Again, iu 18G8, he made the tour of the Southern States, in- 
specting ; went to Texas ; went over a considerable portion of Texas. 
I did not go with him, but I know the fact of his going. He was gone 
then several weeks; I tbink about two months. I am not able to recall 
all the trips he made, but I know he frequently made these inspections 
and tours in the South, up to as late as about the time charges first be- 
gan to come in concerning Eunkle. He went out to Louisville, Ky., to 
look into matters there concerning these reports against Kunkle. 

Question. Did he keep competent inspecting officers employed or at 
work ? 

Answer. 1 might say, iu addition to those I mentioned, he also had 
Mr. Langston, a colored man iu this city, who was au inspector of 
schools, in the educational department, and all his inspectors were 
men of lirst-class ability, who had occupied positions of prominence 
and trust. 

Question. Were you in a position to have a knowledge of the condi- 
tion of the records of the oftice ? 

Answer. When the Bureau was established, in the selection of officers 
to take charge of the different divisions as they arose, the general se- 
lected those officers with special reference to their fitness. 

Question. I asked you if you were in a position to liuow the condition 
of the records of the office"? 

Answer. Well, I may say I was. 

(^)uestion. What was the condition of the records of the archive 
division at the time of the closing of the Bureau? 

Answer. I cannot say very specifically in regard to the condition of 
the records of the Bureau at the time of closing it. When those 
records first began to come in I was assigned to the duty of receiving 
them and arranging them as they came in. I had frequent calls upon 
me for information from those records in connection with the cases of 
bounty and in connection with cases of pension. I recollect one or two 
cases where information was asked from the Pension Bureau in regard 
to the marriage of persons, for Avhich 1 had to refer to the marriage reg- 
ister, and I had no reason to suppose at that time that the records of 
the assistant commissioner and the higher officers of the States were 
not A'ery good records. But with regard to the smaller offices, and 
especially with regard to this list that was sent to General Howard, 
and upon which Ave have been engaged — iu regard to such places as 
those, the subordinate officers, the very extreme ends of the branches or 
ramifications, the records were very incomplete. 

Question. Why were they incomplete ? 

Answer. Many of these offices were established but a short time. 
They were established in 18G5 and 18G0, and iu 1805, when the 
Bureau was established, we did not expect it was going to be con- 
tinued very long, and we had no appropriation, no system of keep- 
ing books was inaugurated among those agents. They had not 
the means to obtain the necessary books and papers on which to 
keep their records ; they were sometimes away on duty at some 
small place as an assistant to a sub-commissioner and as agent of 
the Bureau, and nniny of the records they sent in that we had obtained 
afterward were mere records upon the books — some old court-record 
that they had been able to obtain in which they kept a sort of docket 
of the case's they had tried ; some others were driven off, some were 
killed at their posts, and the records never obtained. There was one 
case 1 recollect very well, of Lieutenant Blending who was killed in 



479 

Mississippi and his records not obtained, and there were two or three in 
Texas. 

Question. Were yon directed by General Howard to enter into corre- 
spondence with officers, or those who had been officers in charge of sta- 
tions, with a view to obtaining" their records 'i 

Answer. You refer to this time during the existence of tbe Bureau 
when I had charge ? 

Question. At any time ? 

Answer. Well, yes; at both times; in fact, I may say it was not so 
much my business at the time these records were in my care to corre- 
spond with these agents. 

Question. Did you, in fact, correspond with them ? 

Answer. I did. 

Question. Entered into a correspondence in regard to all the missing- 
records named in tbe Adjutant-General's letter to General Howard ? 

Answer. In reference to that letter, I have corresponded. I have 
drawn up letters for the general's signature in the case of every officer 
whose name was on that list whose address could be obtained, and in 
addition to that some more whose names were not on the list whose ad- 
dress we have obtained. 

Question. Did you find in many instances that, in fact, there had never 
been any records at the places designated in the Adjutant-General's let- 
ter ? 

Answer. We did find several instances of that kind. I recollect one 
place on the list at which Major Seymour, of the Artillery, was said to 
be agent, and at which the list specified they had no records. Major 
Seymour said he had not established his office there, but he was nomi- 
nally agent at that place; but he was, in fact, agent some miles away, 
where he kept his records ; and that the records turned over to his succes- 
sor were kept in due form. In the case of General McCook he says he 
kept no records at all, because there were no colored jieople there, or 
what records he had kept were unimportant — mere letters. 

Question. Were ijost-commanders made Bureau agents '? 

Answer. Yes; they were, about 18G7, in most States, if not all ; and in 
all as well a i could be done. 

Question. In such instances, where there were no colored people in 
their vicinity, did they keep any records ? 

Answer. In many such cases they have written us that they kept no 
records, and in other cases, where there were colored people, there they 
kept no records separate from their post-papers. 

Question. How fully have these records been supplied by this corre- 
spondence or otherwise ? 

Answer. I cannot say as to the number or as to the bulk, but I can 
say they have been coming in constantly, and from time to time their 
receipt has been acknowledged to us by the Adjutant-General, and in 
some instances they have been sent du'ect to General Howard, and we 
have forwarded them to the Adjutant-General's Office ; but they have 
been coming in constantly up to the present time — up to within two or 
three months. 

Question. Did General Howard make eiibrts in order to obtain those 
records ? 

Answer. He has made every effort that a man could make. 

Question. Has he had any clerical force since the Bureau was discon-< 
tinned ? 

Answer. The only clerical force he has had to my knowledge was 
during last spring, when all this work was thrown upon him by the 



480 

Adjutaiit-Geueral, of correspouding with all those officers. He asked 
the Adjutant-General to employ for him a clerk, and to this the Adju- 
tant-General consented for a specified time. It was originallj^ for two 
months, I think. I was away last summer, and I think a month was 
added. There was a verbal arrangement with the Adjutant-General or 
some of his subordinates, perhaps Major McMillan, that the general was 
allowed to employ two men and divide the pay between them, the price 
allowed to one $100; that is all the clerical assistance he had, except 
what he paid for out of his own pocket, and what his own aides have 
done. 

Question. I wish to call attention to the retained-bounty fund, and 
learn "what you know about it. 

Answer. Until about a year ago last January I do not think 1 knew 
anything about it. During the days of the Bureau 1 had very little to 
do with the financial work, but I accompanied the general to Arizona 
on his last trip. 

Question. At what time ! 

Answer. We arrived in Washington on the oth of November, 1872. 
As soon as the general could make his report of that trip, and settle up 
his business with the Interior Department — during that time he visited 
the Secretary of the Treasury with reference to the fund he had had in his 
possession known as the South Carolina school-fund. A specific law 
applying to this fund had been passed directing the general to turn it 
over to the commissioners to be designated by the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and the general called upon the Secretary of the Treasury 
and asked him to designate .those commissioners to relieve him as soon 
as possible of his responsibility in connection with it. And in assisting 
the general in working up that, I came across a list of names with a 
heading something like this : " List of unpaid claims of the irregular 
or retained-bounty fund," and I called the general's attention to it. It 
was in General Balloch's handwriting, no name signed to it, and I asked 
the general — I had some conversation with somebody else — but about 
that time I obtained some information in regard to this retained-bounty 
fund, and I showed it to the general and asked him if that matter was 
all settled up ; and he said it was not — he believed it was not — and he 
further directed me to write a note to General Balloch, or else he wrote 
one himself, or else saw him in person. As the result of that letter or 
personal communication General Balloch sent back the note, and I 
think it must have been addressed to me personally, because I could 
not find it in the general's files, in which he said, " General Howard 
when he relieved me got a |)ersonal credit at the Treasury Department 
for some monev, about $2,000 I think, and he can pay this balance of 
$1,628.59 out of that." 

The general then wrote a letter to the Treasurer of the United States 
inclosing this $1,628.50, and at the same time, and on the same day, 
wrote a letter to General Vincent mentioning these two funds — first, the 
South Carolina school-fund, stating that he had had that fund in his 
possession, and calling attention to the law, and stating also that he had 
asked the Secretary of the Treasury to designate the commissioners; 
and then he called attention to this balance of the retained-bounty fund, 
and said substantially the law required that he should turn the balance 
into the Treasury Department. I then accompanied General Howard 
to the Treasury Department, and he there made a deposit in currency 
of $1,628.59, and handed his letter to General Spinner. I tbink he was 
going out of the city that night, and I took the other letter for General 
Vincent myself, to General Vincent in person. I handed it to General 



481 

Vincent, and he opened it and readjt in my presence ; he then said : "I 
have just signed a letter on this subject, and will you have the kindness 
to take this back to General Howard," or something of that kind. "Ask 
him to keep this letter of his until he receives mine." 

I then took it back to General Howard, and, I think, the next day, or 
the next day following, the letter came from General Vincent to General 
Howard. The day I took this letter to General Vincent was the 8th of 
January. The letter I took was dated the Sth of January, and the let- 
ter from General Vincent was the 7th of January, 1873 — dated the day 
before. 

Question. lu fact, did you carry the letter from General Howard to 
General Vincent calling attention to this retained-bounty fund before 
General Howard had received any notice from the War Department in 
regard to it ? 

Answer. Before he had received one word of notice, verbal or written. 
This is marked with our received stamp January 9, the receipt of the 
first letter from General Vincent, showing it was received the first day 
after I carried my letter of January 8 to him. 

Question. The first letter to your knowledge was sent by General 
Howard to Major Vincent, and the next day a letter from Major Vincent 
to General Howard ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. I ought to say that the letter of General Howard 
that I took back. General Howard retained until the loth in order to 
comply with the request made by General Vincent in his letter of the 
7th. In the subsequent correspondence General Howard was directed 
in a letter of the 2J:th January to recover that money from the Treasury 
Department and to turn it over to Major McMillan. 

The following letter was then read by the witness from a letter-press 
book : 

Washington, D. C, January 8, 1873. 
General : In my report to the honorable Secretary there are two fnuds of which I 
have not spoken. One is what is called the " South Carolina school-fund,'' and the 
other " the retained-bounty fund." These are provided for by specitic law ; the former 
to be turned over to three commissioners to be appointed by the Hon, Secretary of 
the Ti'easury, and the latter to be settled by coA^ering into the Treasury all that re- 
mains at the termination of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 
In the former I went in person to the Secretary of the Treasury, and was shown in the 
office of the Assistant Secretary just after my return from the West. He promised 
me he would see to the appointment of the commissioners and notify me. The bonds 
are at the Treasiiry waiting the transfer. 

The second fund was held in trust by my chief disbursing officer for the claimants 
according to the law, and refunded, as these or any of these claimants could be found. 
On his discharge he transferred to me a list of unpaid claimants, amounting to $1,628.59, 
(sixteen hundred and twenty-eight dollars and fifty-nine cents,) which I proposed to 
have deposited on my return from Arizona, as required by law, but it escaped my notice 
till Captain Sladen called -mj attention to it yesterday. I will acknowledge to the 
Treasurer my delay, explaining the cause, and send you a copy of his receipt of deposit, 
and of my settlement of this fund with the Treasury according to law. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. 0. HOWARD, 
Late Commissioner Biueait. 
General Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

January 15, 1373. 
P. S. — At your I'equest I will add a postscript : I have obtained a book from General 
Balloch, containing a list of all the claiujfciuts on this irregular fund, and when paid. 
I send it herewith. 
Yours truly, 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Late Commissioner, 4'C. 

31 H c 



482 

Question. As a matter of fact did you send those books immediately 
to the Adjutant-General's Oltice? 

Answer. 1 either accompanied General Howard in tlie delivery of those 
books, or I delivered them myself. 

Question. When ! 

Answer. On the day I took this letter down the second time, 15th 
January. 

Question. Have you that letter to Treasurer Spinner depositing that 
balance, $l,()li8.a9 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

The witness produced a copy of the letter from the letter-press book, 
and read as follows: 

Washingtox, D. C, January 8, 1873. 
Dear Sir : My cbief disbursing officei' transferred to me the accompanying list of un- 
paid claimants on the aeoonnt of a trust fund established by act of Congress, approved 
March 2, 1867, p. 9, .545, Revised Statutes — "Act to regulate the disposition of an 
irregular fund," &.c. The last clause requires me to account for the unexpended bal- 
ance. Having been absent at the passage of the act closing the Bureau upon other 
duty, and for the most of the time since, it has escaped my attention to make the re- 
quired settlemeilt. Please now credit me with the sum of $1,628.59, the entire balance 
of the said fund remaining in m_y hands, also a copy of the list of unpaid claimants. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Late Com. Bureau Befugecs, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 
Hon. F. E. Spinner, 

Treasurer United /States. 

Question. When this amount was draw n from the Treasury did Gen- 
eral Howard write to Treasurer Spinner'? 
Answer. He did. 
Question. Have you this letter "? 
Answer. I have. 

The witness produced a copy of a letter in a letter-press book, and 
read it as follows : 

Washington, D. C, January 27, 187:^. 
Sir: In accordance with my construction of the act entitled "An act to regulate the 
disposition of an irregular fund in the custody of the Freedmen's Bureau," approved 
March 2, ji867, 1 had the honor to turnover to you on the 8th instant the sum of $1,628.59, 
being the balance of said fund remaining in my hands at the close of the Bureau. By 
a letter just received from the Adjutant-General of the Army, copy inclosed, I am re- 
quired to transfer the amount to Capt. Jas. McMillan, Third Artillery, chief disbursing 
officer. 

If, thei'efore, the matter is not beyond my control, I have the honor to request that 
the above sum be placed to the credit of Captain McMillan, or be returned to me so 
that I may transfer it. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, U. S. A., late Commis.no ner Bureau B., F. and A. L. 
Hon. F. E. Spinneh, 

Treasurer of the United States. 

Question. Was this money returned to General Howard, or credit 
directly given to Mnjor McMillan 1 

Answer. My recollection of it is that it got into the Treasury and 
it was difticult to get it out, and by verbal arrangement made between 
General Howard and the assistant treasurer or the officials of the Treas- 
ury Department the money was to be transferred to the credit of Major 
McMillan, and some sort of ackno\^edgment to that effect given to 
General Howard, which he was to transmit to Major McMillan and 
obtain his receipt therefor. That is my recollection of it. He may 
have received a certificate of deposit, but I recollect it in that way. 



483 

Question. Did Captain McMillan, in fact, give a receipt for it ? 

Answer. He did. 

Question. Have you that receipt in your possession 1 

Answer. I have. [The witness produced a paper.] 

The Judge Advocate said : There is no dispute about that. 

Question. What do you know about the one hundred and seventy- 
four complaint cases ? 

Answer. I have examined into that portion of the one hundred and 
seventy-four cases that belonged to General Howard. 

Question. How many were there of them '? 

Answer. Seven. 

Question. In those seven cases had the money been sent by General 
Howard to pay the claimants? 

Answer. [ noticed b^- the letter-press copies in the letter-press books 
that in each one of those cases the money had actually been sent to the 
agent with which to pay the claim, and that, in addition to that, in five 
of the seven cases I have here present with me the receipt or acknowl- 
edgment of the assistant treasurer or the chief of the depositor^-, that 
the money on these checks had been drawn out by the person to whose 
order the check had been drawn ; that is to say, the agent's order to 
whom it was sent. In the two cases that I have not been able to obtain 
receipts for, while the vouchers seem to indicate that it was paid during 
General Howard's disbursements, the check was drawn during disburse- 
ments by Gtneral Balloch and by General Balloch himself, and was 
cashed at tlie depository before General Howard became disbursing 
officer. 

Question. Do you know anything about that matter of $87.25 paid by 
General Howaril under protest"^ 

Answer. I know there was considerable correspondence with the War 
Deparhnent on that subject. The general was charged with that amount 
by the War Department. In the examination of the accounts everything 
seemed to indicate that Major Brown was responsible ; in fact, the check 
had been received back and turned over to Major Brown, and a new check 
given, after vouchers had been placed in the Treasury and credit obtained, 
but we could not go any further. We could not absolutely show that 
Major Brown had received that money and had not a(;counted for it. 
General Howard was morally certain he had not ha<l tliat money; but 
as he could not trace it further, having no record in his possession that 
amounted to anything, lie paid the money under protest. In the mean 
time, in reply to the tirst letter of the War Department, that it appeared 
to be turned over to Major Brown, a letter was received from the AVar 
Department ordering General Howard to pay that money, and he paid 
it under protest. That money we have since traced to Major Brown, by 
very strong circumstantial evidence. 
Question. And he is responsible for it ? 
Answer. He is. 

Qu! sti )n. Are you certain that that direction from the War Depart- 
ment to pay this money was in the form of an order — was peremptory ? 
Answer. The letter was written by General Townsend, and I think 
the exa^t language is, "Tlie Secretary of War directs that yon shall 
pa.\ over this money." 

Qu s'ion. Have you this letter? 
Answer. I don't seem to have the letter with me. 
Th ' Counsel for the Accused said : We will furnish it, if it can 
be obtained. But there is another letter which has reference to it. 

The counsel for the accused handed the witness a paper, which he 
read as follows : 



484 

War DEPAiiTMEXT, Ad.iutant-Gkneral's Okfice, 

Washington, D. C, September 20, 1873. 
Oknkkal: I have the honor to ackuowhulj^o receipt of your communication of the 
15th instant, iuclosinif your check for |;87.25, beinsj amount due James Robbins, late 
priv^ate Company I, Tenth United States Colored Troops. 

With reference to your protest against the action requirinj; you to pay over this 
money, you are respectfully informed that the statement of the case, as set forth in 
your communication, is not in accordance with the facts, which may be succinctly 
stated as follows : 

The money was received to pay this claimant; vouchers for the disbursement were 
rendered to the Treasury Department ; the disbursement was not, in fact, made, the 
money having been deducted from the funds held for payment of these claims ; it was 
not, at the time the transfer was made, turned over to this Office. 

Investigation disclosed the fact that you, as a disbursing officer, did receive the same, 
but failed to either charge yourself with it, or to account for it to the Treasurer of the 
United States; that you did use it to make up your indebtedness to the Government, 
when the transfer was made to Maj. .1. M. Brown, and, therefore, in fact did not trans- 
fer to him all the public funds for which you were accountable. 

Your action in transferring the amount now balances the account so far as is known. 
I am, general, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 
Ctcn. O. O. llowARn, JJ. S. L, Late Comniissioner, ^x. 

Questiou. About that sura : you say it had been determiued that 
Major Browu was responsible and not General Howard, by iuvestigatiou. 

Answer. Well, I cannot say who has determined it. In a letter which 
General Howard wrote to Major Brown he has stated all the facts, which 
vseemed to show clearly to General Howard and myself that Major 
Brown is responsible, and Major Brown has talked about the subject- 
matter of that letter and has not denied his responsibility, and has said 
that he will still look further and try to clear that matter up. 

Question, As to the matter of j$2U8.50, do you know about that I 

Answer. That is the case for which Lieutenant Granger was cash- 
iered, and it followed somewhat the same course that this $87.25 did. 
It appears that General Howard made a mistake in depositing, and 
when his attention was first invited to it by the War Department, upon 
his return from Arizona, for a long time he could find no trace of it. 
Finally, I asked Major Brown to come in the ofliee aud look the matter 
over, and he did so, and on the book of the refugees' and freedmen's 
fund he found a credit corresponding in the date when this payment 
was received to the amount of $208.50, aud that seemed to settle it that 
it must have gone into that fund, especially as we could not get trace of 
it elsewhere. 

General Howard then wrote a letter to Major Vincent, in which he 
stated that it seems to appear to have been deposited to the credit of 
the refugees' and freedmen's fund, and asked that he might be relieved 
of the responsibility. A reply to that letter was received, but not 
relieving General Howard from responsibility. I then saw Mr. Terry 
and asked him to come u[) and assist in looking up the matter, aud he 
and I met one evening at the oftice and we went through the books. 

Question. What was the conclusion of the whole thing ? 

Answer. The conclusion was that Major Browu was responsible. 

Questiou. Did he admit that! 

Answer. I say the same thing in regard to that as I did in regard to 
■■$87.25. They were all included in this letter. 

•Question. In spite of that, has General Howard in fact paid over this 
money "? 

Answer. He has received a notice from the Second Auditor that he 
3iad a, credit for some money he had previously turned over, amounting 



485 

to $209.96. He made a visit to the Auditor aud asked tliat from this 
credit of $209.90, the $208.50 with which he is charged might be taken, 
aud 1 have a letter here statiug that that will be doue. 

Question. In fact he paid it, as well as the $87.25 ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Do you know of any payments made by General Howard, 
under the direction of the War Department, or order of the War De- 
partment, where it has turned out that General Howard was not 
responsible ? 

Answer. I cannot answer that question, yes or no. I can say he was 
directed to turn over the amount in the case of Ambess House and Eob- 
bius. They make up $87.25 and the $208.50, and that it has since 
appeared that he was not personally responsible for that amount. 

Question. Do you know of any other instance! 

Answer. I recollect that he was called upon to turn over a certain 
sum of money — I cannot state the amount; my impression is, it was 
about $500 — and that afterward he was allowed a credit for ])art of 
that amount. This credit of $209.90 that he was allowed was, to the 
iDest of my knowledge and belief, a part of that amount which he had 
been directed by the War Department to turn in. 

Question. With regard to the monthly statements on pages 1 and 2 of 
Exhibit B, part 2d, has General Howard any communication from the 
Second Comptroller of the Treasury? 

Answer. He has. 

[The witness produced a letter which was handed to the judge-advo- 
cate for examination.] 

The Judge-Advooate said : I desire to inquire what the counsel 
proposes to i>rove in that document. 

The Counsel for the Accused. I propose to prove that this very 
item in the charge was investigated, at the request of the Secretary of 
AVar, by the Treasury ofttcials, and there has been more or less testi- 
mony already put in in regard to it. 

The Judge-Advocate. Now I suggest that the Treasury oflBcials be 
brought here, so I may have an opportunity to cross-examine them. 

The Counsel for the Accused. This appears to be an original. 

The Judge-Advocate. There is no objection on the ground of its 
not being an original. 

The Counsel for the Accused. We are obliged to put this in evi- 
dence, may it please the court, because the judge-advocate is in pos- 
session of a similar letter, (or should be in possession of a similar letter,) 
in fact the very report. This is information communicated by the Sec- 
ond Comptroller to General Howard of a report which he has made. 
The judge-advocate asks how we connect it with the charge. Itis a proper 
question, I admit. We connect it by the tenor of the report itself. If 
the court should find, on hearing it read, that they did not understand 
what it referred to, the objection would be a very pertinent one. 

The Judge Advocate said : If the court please, I desire to object, 
on the ground that (if it is intended to put in this letter as an investi- 
gation made by the Second Comptroller) the accused and his counsel 
have stated that they intended to show that such an investigation was 
made, and I desire to have the Second Comptroller himself here, that I 
may cross-examine him on the matter, rather than that we should have 
merely a statement. 

[The court overruled the objection, and the letter was read, as follows:] 



486 

Treasury DfrPARXMENX, Second Comptroller's Office, 

February 4, 1874. 
Sir : As requested by you, I trausmit herewith copy of my iutlorsement on the letter 
of the Secretary of War in relatiou to Geueral Ballocli's accounts of December 31, 1873. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Covqjtroller. 
General 0. 0. Howard, 

jrashiiif/toH, D. C. 

Case of Geo. JV. Balloch, lale dis'jursiiig officer P.ureau Befugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 

Lands. 

On the letter of the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the Treasury, in regard to 
discrepancy in the amount reported by General Balloch as on deposit with the Treas- 
urer of the United States, and the amount as reported by the Treasurer, referred to the 
Comiitroller by the Secretary of the Treasury for such action as was necessary, the 
Comptroller made the following indorsement : 

Eespectfully returned to the Secretary of the Treasury with the papers. 

The discrepancies uoted by the Secretary of War in General Ealloch's accounts are 
explained by Mr. Terry, General Balloch's clerk, whom I called before me, as follows : 

The following are the reasons : 

When the certificates were received from the Auditor they were taken up on 
General Balloch's books as cash. As these accumulated l^iey were signed and sent to 
the paymaster, and, after examination I suppose in that Department, a check was sent 
to General Balloch for the amount on the assistant treasurer. New York, or the United 
States Treasurer, aud by him at once deposited at the place on w-hich it was drawn. 
Sometimes the certificates sent to the paymaster we would receive no checks for for 
some weeks. I think much of the time they owed us $150,000 to $400,000. In making 
up the account-current at the end of a month, the clerk having that in charge would 
come to me and, laying his account-current before me, say, " Where is the balance due 
the United States deposited?" Keeping a statement of daily balances with all the 
depositaries where General Balloch bad funds, except the United States Treasury, I 
would give him the amounts in each of the places; the certificates on hand he took 
from his own records, and the balance 1 told him to put in the United States Treasury. 

The certificates in the hands of the paymaster, money in the hands of agents and 
disbursing officers, where checks were not sent with the vouchers, and partial pay- 
ments on contracts, were all included in this amount. After hearing Mr. Terry's state- 
ment, I took at random three or four of the accounts on the list, and examined 
them by Mr. Terry's books, which sustained his explanation. In fact it is 
well known, at least to all the accounting officers of the Government, that at almost 
auj'^ given date there would be a discrepancy between tlie balance charged by the 
accounting officers and that reported by the disbursing officer. For instance, the Aud- 
itor and Comptroller sign to-day a requisition in favor of a disbursing ofScer for $10,000. 
In stating the account of that officer he is charged with the money as of the date of 
the requisition, though days aud sometimes weeks elapse before he actually receives 
the money. Of course, if he were called upon during the intermediate time to report 
his balance, there would be a discrepancy of $10,000 between the Treasury statemeirt 
and his own. There is hardly an account of any magnitude in which such discrepan- 
cies do not arise, and they furnish no presumption of fraud or even irregularity. If 
the officer keeps and renders his accounts as required by law, furnishes satisfactory 
vouchers for the disbursements alleged to have been made, and turns over any balance 
in his hands when directed to do so by proper authority, it is all that is required in the 
settlement of his accounts. 

To verify and explain seriatim all the discrepancies on the list sent by the War De- 
partment w^ould probably be a work of some weeks, aud I do not see how General 
Balloch's final balance would theu be in auy way att'ected. That, as I have before 
said, depends on his accounting by legal and proper vouchers for all the public money 
disbursed by him. The difference between the sums placed in his hands and the sums 
thus accounted for constitutes the balance. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Comjdroller. 

Second Comptroller's Office, 

December 31, 1873. 

Question. With regard to the investinent of bomity-mouey in bonds, 
have yen a letter from the Second Comptroller to General Howard upon 
that subject '? 



487 

Answer. I have. 

[The witness produces a letter, which was handed to the judge- 
advocate.] 

The Judge- Advocate said : IT the court please, this letter appearl 
to be a reply to a previous note of February 5, 1874, from Genera: 
Howard. In it the Comptroller makes certain statements. It begins 
" In reply to your note of the 5th instant, I say that you called 
upon me iu the early part of 1870;" then he goes on to make cer- 
tain statements on the subject-matter of the inquiry. I object to 
the admission of that document, on the ground that I desire to have 
the Second Comptroller here in person, if they proi)ose' to introduce 
anything from the Second Comptroller, that he may be cross-examined, 
this document being, in my judgment, improper evidence. 1 make no 
objection to the anthenticity of the signature. The point I make is this: 
that if they intend in their defense to use any statements from parties, 
they must bring the parties here themselves, if they can be obtained, 
so they may be subject to cross-examination. Certainly Mr. Brodhead 
is near enough to be brought before us. To introduce his statement iu 
the form of a letter, without opportunity of cross-examination, I think 
is improper ; not only thinh it improper, but I know I am borne out by 
the decisions in the works on evidence. 

The Counsel for the accused said : It is proper to say that we intend 
io call Dr. Brodhead as a witness. 

The Judge- Advocate, Then would be tlie proper time to put that 
letter in his hand, and question him upon it. 

The President of the court said : In the mean time the letter can be 
received simply for what it is worth. I think it comes under the ruling 
of the court before announced — part of the development of the case, in 
the hands of a competent witness, and good for what it is worth. 

The Judge- Advocate. Supi)ose, if the court please, the defense do 
not produce Dr. Brodhead. 

The Counsel for the accused. We do not Avant it to stand in that 
way. If we say we will call a witness we wish to be compelled to call 
him. 

[The objection by the judge-advocate was then overruled, and the 
letter was read, as follows :] 

Treasury Depautmext, Second CoMrxROLLEa's Office, 

February 9, 1874. 
General O. O. Howard, U. S. A. : 

Dear General : In reply to your note of the 5th inst., I say that you called upon 
me in the early part of 1870, I think about the Ist of February, and iucjuired if there 
was any legal or other objection to investing the funds that had accumulated in your 
hands under the J. R. of March 29, 18G7, (15 Stat., 26.) My answer was substantially 
that you might legally and properly invest these funds in United States honds, de- 
posit them in the Treasury, and account for the interest ; that the acts in regard to 
the investment of public funds by disbursing officers, and especially the act of August 
6, 1846, (9 Stat., 65,) did not apply in this case, as you were by law made the payee 
upon accounts already adjudicated and settled at the Treasury, and had received pay- 
ment from a disbursing officer, who was credited at the Treasury by your receipt in 
«vei-y case. There is no law forbidding the payee of an account, for services or sup- 
plies, settled at the Treasury, from investing the money. 

This was the purport of the opinion I gave you, and I am of the same opinion now 
that I was then. I have no doubt of its legal soundness. 

I understand from you at the time that General Spinner had been consulted and had 
expressed similar views as to the legality and propriety of the proposed investment. 
Truly and respectfullv, j^ours, 

J. M. BRODHEAD. 

Question. Are you acquainted with the handwriting of Dr. Brod- 
head ? 



488 

Answer. I am tolerably familiar with it. 

Question. Is that letter in his handwriting? 

Answer. I should say it was, the whole letter. 

Question. Do you know anything about refusal upon the part of the 
War Department to allow General Howard access to his records and 
correspondence ? 

Answer. I know that until the receipt of this letter by General How- 
ard the records of the Freedmen's Bureau now in the War Department 
had always been accessible to him. The date of this letter is January 
3, 1874. He came to the oflice one morning, and told me that he bad 
received intimation in some form from General Vincent, or General 
Townsend, that he would be forbidden to visit his records, and there- 
npon sat down and wrote an application to the Adjutant-General for per- 
mission to visit those records. That was the second application he had 
made, because, shortly after we returned from Arizona in November,, 
when these letters began to come from the War Department askiog for 
information on various subjects, he found he had no records in his pos- 
session from which to get information, and he wrote a letter to the Ad- 
jutant-General, asking permission to visit his records, and that permis- 
sion was granted ; and during that time until the date of this letter^ 
General Howard and his aides were in the habit of going there freely.. 

Question. Will you read that letter, if it is addressed to General 
Howard ? 

[The witness then read the letter, as follows :] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

iVanhhigtoii, 1). C.,Jcuiiiarjj 3, 1874. 

General O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner Bureau B. F. cf A. L , Washiugton, D. C. : 
General: Eeferring to your application of the 31st ultimo, asking; to consult the 
records of the Freedmen's Branch of this Office, you are respectfully informed that in- 
formation from the said records, necessary to yon, will be furnished upon the receipt of 
a written application or applications, stating tlie information desired by you specifically. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Jdjutant-GcnerciL 

Question. When, if ever, was that rule in the Adjutant-General's 
OfBce changed ? 

Answer. That rule was not changed until after General Howard had 
made application to this court for permission to visit his records; I 
would make one exception, except that General Howard in the mean 
time had api)lied for permission for Major Ooates to visit the records 
in order to refresh his memory, and compare his accounts in his posses- 
sion with some there, and that permission had been accorded Major 
Goates. 

Question. In reference to the French defalcation, have you in your 
possession, as belonging to General Howard, any letter inclosing draft 
of an account of that defalcation ? 

Answer. I have a copy, certified by myself, and made by myself, 
(witness produced the paper,) of a letter from William Noonan, one of 
the bondsmen, inclosing draft for $3,000. 

[Witness read the letter, as follows:] 

Natchez, Miss., August 16, 1873. 

Dear Sir : Inclosed please find draft, payable to your order, for the sum of three 

thousand dollars, to be credited to O. C. French's account in settling his indebtedness 

to the United States Government as disbursing oflicer Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 

and Abandoned Lands at this post. This amount was handed me by Captain French 



489 

■witli some other funds wliicli I sliall forward yon shortly to be ci'edited to him as above. 
I am on the bond of Captain French, and as snch feel interested in knowing that his 
accounts"are settled, or about to be, which I am satisfied will soon be the case. Please 
acknowledge receipt of draft on reception. 
I am, sir, very respectfully yours, 

WM. NOONAN. 
Maj. Gen. O. O. Howaro, 

Washinyton, Z>. C. 

I certify that this is a trne copy of the original. 

J. A. SLADEN, A. I). C, U. S. A. 

Question. Was that sum immediately turned over to the War Depart- 
ment? 

Answer. That was turned over to the War Department on the return 
of General Howard, who was absent from the city for a few days, Sep- 
tember 9, 1873. 

Question. With regard to a du])licate voucher of A. K. Shepherd & 
Brother, have you a letter froiu General Howard giving- information to 
the Secretary of War npon that subject I 

Answer. I have. 

[Witness i^roduced a copy of the letter in letter-press book, which he 
read, as follows :] 

\Yashixgton, D. C, February 17, 1874. 

Sir : I have the honor to inform you that I have learned to-day from General Bal- 
loch that an account of A. R. Shepherd for plumbing, which was apparently paid out 
of the "refugees and freedmen's fund," as before reported, has probably been twice 
allowed in the settlement of the accounts of General Balloch with the Treasury Depart- 
laient. 

This account was stated, I believe, in a footing to the amount of about |15,000, more 
or less. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

0. O. HOWAED, 

Briy. Gen., U. S. A. 

Hon. W. W. Belknap. 

Question. Have you a letter from General Howard to General Balloch 
asking for an explanation upon this subject ! 

Answer. Yes, sir. [Witness produced a copy of letter from letter- 
press-book, dated February 24, 1874.J 

Counsel for the Accused proposes to read the letter in evidence. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, I object to this let- 
ter being read. It ai)pears to have been a letter, dated February 24, 
1874, from the accused to General Balloch, since tbe act was passed 
organizing this court, (of February 13, 1874,) since this court was or- 
dered to assemble, February 10, 1874. 

The Counsel foe, the Accused said : We have taken testimony 
upon this matter already, for the reason that we were well aware of the 
fact, and we wanted the investigation to go to everything that was 
known, and we think it was improper to make any sort of objection to 
it. Here was a charge preferred by the Secretary on the 4th of Decem- 
ber, and, as a matter of fact, the Secretary kept writing to General 
Howard, directing him to make reports, and upon the very testimony 
which he ordered General Howard to furnish him, he prepared a second 
letter of January 5, and then, directly after that, went on and ordered 
him to furnish more testimony, and the thing has kept on until almost 
the time of the sitting of this court. Now, we do not know where to 
stop in this matter ; it seems to be all connected together, the later let- 
ters as well as the tirst. 

The Judge-Advocate said : If the court please, the letter of the 



490 

Secretary of War, forming part second of Exliibit B, transmitted, as one 
of the appendices to his letter, a communication from George W. Bal- 
locli, wbicli liad been transmitted to liim through General Howard ; see 
pages 7, 8, and 9 of part second. Now, as this court was required to 
fully investigate into matters contained in these communications of the 
Secretary of War, and the appendices to them forming a part of his 
communications, it became my duty to bring forward all the evidence 
upon this subject. I have done so ; I brought evidence upon the sub- 
ject of those vouchers, forming the sum of $1,940.57. As to what the 
transaction was, the court had to investigate, of course, and the matter 
has been gone into. But I have not brought these transactions down 
to a later period than the act organizing this court. Now, whatever the 
accused may have done since this court was organized for the purpose 
of investigating this matter, or whatever he may have done in the way 
of writing to other people, is not the proper evidence here ; the only 
thing that can come from him, in this matter, is his statement. And, 
therefore, I object to any letter that he may have written at as late a 
period as February 24, proposed to be put in evidence on this subject, 
as not being pro[)erly within the provisions of this examination, and not 
as evidence Ijefore this court in any form whatever. 

The Counsel for the Accused said: The judge-advocate ex- 
amined Mr. Moody i'ully upon that, and the question of dates and rules 
Avas talked about. Mr. Moody had an idea that the War Department 
gave information fi}\Ht to General Howard about this matter ; and we 
said General Howard ^j's^ gave information to the AVar Department. 

The Judge-Advocate. But what General Howard writes to other 
people is not evidence in any form. 

The President of the Court said : The question at issue, as I 
understand, is that you claim that the War Department discovered this 
mistake, and General Howard now claims in his defense that he dis- 
covered and gave notice. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : We understand it in this way : 
A letter has been put in evidence from General Howard to the Secretary 
of War, giving him notice of an error, and calling his attention to it. 
Then there is following directly after, a letter from General Howard, a 
superior officer, calling upon his former subordinate to explain to him. 
It runs right aloug in the same way. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : [ call the attention of the 
court to a series of letters that were read by Mr. Cauldwell upon this very 
matter, and they were ordered to be printed. 

The Judge- Advocate said: I desire to state that the papers which 
came in, referred to by the learned counsel, came in under an overruling 
of my objection. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. 'Lri)on the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the president of 
the court said : The former ruling of the court was that the letter should 
be read for what it was worth. The decision of the court is, that the 
objection be overruled, and that this letter may be read. 

Letter was then read, as follows, from the letter-iiress-book:] 

Fkbruary, 24, 1874. 
Sir : There have beeu sent to the Third Auditor of the Treasury two separate ac- 
couuts for phinibing by A. E. Shepherd, each supported by a voucher, which was the 
certificate of Maj. J. M. Brown. The two vouchers have different dates in the receipts, 
one dated March 24, 1871, and supi)orting the regular appropriation account, the other 
Jauuarj' 14, 1871, sui^portiug suppleiueutary Refugees and Freedmeu's account. 



491 

Please make any explanation yon may have or can ascertain throngh yonr former 
clerks, and send it to the Third Auditor, forwarding me a copy for my information. 
Very respectliillj', yonr obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, U. S. A. 
General Geo. W. Balt.och, 

Late Chief Dishiirsiiig Officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Question. Did General Balloch answer that letter f 

[The answer was pointed out in the proceedings of the 27th day, in a 
letter dated Washingtou, D. C, February 20, lS7-t, by George W. Bal- 
loch, late brevet brigadier-general and chief disbursing offlcer Bureau 
of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, to the Hon. Allan Kuth- 
erford, Third Auditor United States Treasury.] 

Question. At what time did General Howard go first to Arizona in 
1872? 

Answer. March 7. 

Question. What time did he return from that trip ? 

Answer. June 20, 1872. 

Question. How long did he remain at Washington 1 

Answer. He left on the night of the 10th of July. 

Question. What was he doing between these two periods ? 

Answer. Most of the time he was engaged upon what we call Indian 
work. He had a delegation of eight or ten or a dozen Indians here, 
and they had several interviews with the Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs and interviews with the President and with the Secretary of the 
Interior. These, I believe, took place on different dates ; he was also 
making up a very long report to the Secretary of the Interior. At the 
same time he was attending occasionally to the business of the ofiice, 
and he did not have much time to devote to that. 

Question. How long was he gone the second time? 

Answer. He was gone from July 10 until November 5. 

Question. What did he do immediately after his return ? 

Answer. The first thing for him to do, and that he did do, was to 
make out his report to the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs of the results of that trip ; and he had a great deal 
of correspondence with his agents whom he had appointed and left be- 
hind him, and with the different of&cials, both of the Army and Indian 
Bureau and the Secretary of the Interior with regard to different prom- 
ises he had made and treaties he had made with different bands of In- 
dians. 

Question, How long did such labor as that occupy ? 

Answer. It occupied a great deal of his time — well into the new year — 
although he commenced the labor brought upon him by the War De- 
partment in connection with his own Bureau in December, a month 
after he got back, and he was engaged most all the time during Novem- 
ber and December in settling up his Indian affairs. 

Question. Do you know whether General Howard sought that appoint- 
ment! 

Answer. 1 am pretty well assured he did not. He was surprised 
when asked to go. 

Question. Did he go under orders ? 

Answer. He did. His orders from the Secretary of War were to re- 
port to the Secretary of the Interior, and from him receive specific orders. 

Question. Do you know when he was relieved from those duties ? 

Answer. He never has been formally relieved of those duties. I think 
he considered, and 1 did too, for I was interested with him on the 



492 

second trip, considered we were relieved from that duty after the reports 
were rendered and returns of property and money rendered. 

Question. You had no formal order, then, relieving you ? 

Answer. Not that I am able to call to mind. I have a letter, the first 
intimation. 

Question. What was the date ? 

Answer. It was February 28, 1872, from C. Delano, addressed to Gen- 
eral O. O. Howard. 

[Witness read the letter as follows :] 

Department of the Interior, 

irashington, February 28, 1872. 
Dear Sir : I shall be very much obliged if you can see me at the Department before 
5 p. m. to-day or before 10 a. m. to-morrow. I have a matter of some importance to 
the pul>lic service which I desire to state to you. 
Very truly, 

C. DELANO. 
General O. O. Howard, 

Washington, 1>. C. 

Question. What was the date of the order of the Secretary of War. 

Answer. I have not that order with me. 

Question. In fact, was General Howard's time almost exclusively oc- 
cupied during the remainder of the year 1872 after March with this 
business of the Indians and in relation to the Indians ? 

Answer. I should say it was almost exclusively occupied in that 
business. 

Question. Do you know if General Howard at any time made a request 
for a copy of the charges presented here ? 

Answer. General Howard made application by telegraph from Pough- 
keepsie, ]S. Y., where he was in July last, asking, if there were any 
charges against him, that he might be furnished with a copy of them, in 
order that he might prepare his defense, or something to that effect. 

Question. Have you the reply of the Secretary of War to that tele- 
gram ? 

Answer. I have the re])ly of Thomas M. Vincent to that telegram. 

[The witness read the following letter :] 

War Departjient, Ap.tutant-Generae's Office, 

H'ashhigfo)!, D. C, Juhj 14, 1873. 
Genf:ral : Your telegram of the 11th instant, stating you have read the opinion of 
the Attorney-General, asking for " a full statement of all that the Government claims 
that I (you) owe, naming the disbursing officers through whom I (you) am made 
liable, with their respective accounts," has been referred to this office by the Secretary 
of War, and I have the honor to inform you that you will be advised in due time. 

In this connection the Secretary of War deems it proper to invite your attention to 
the matter of the irregular funds, or retained-bounty fund, (amounting to .$115,236.49,) 
under the act of Congress approved March 2, 18t!7, which was the subject of a letter 
to you, dated January 24, 1873, (receipt acknowledged by you .January 27, 1873.) It is 
desired that the instructions conveyed by said letter be complied with without further 
delay. 

If the accounts for disbursement from the said fund, accompanied by vouchers, can- 
not be rendered by you, it is important that the fact should be promptly communi- 
cated. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant Gcnvral. 
General O. 0. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau R., F. and A. L., Washington, D. C. 

The court then, at 4 o'clock p. m., adjourned until to-morrow at 11 
o'clock a. m. 



493 



THIKTY-SEVENTH DAY. 



Court of Inquiry Eooms, Xo. 181G F St., 

Washington, D. C, April 30, 1874—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, U. S. A.; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster- General U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A.; 

5. Col. George AV. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A.; 

6. Col. J. J. Eevnolds, third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate,- 
also 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer 
and H. D. Beems, esqs., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

First Lieut. Joseph A. Sladen, Fourteenth Infantry, the witness 
last examined, having heard his testimony of yesterday read, pro- 
nounced it to be correct as recorded. 

He was then further examined, as follows : 
By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

The witness said : I attempted yesterday to give the language used 
by General Townsend in the order to General Howard to turn over 
this $87.25. I have the letter here. 

[The witness read the letter as follows :] 

War Departmext, Adjutaxt-General's Office, 

JVashingfon, D. C, April 22, 1873. 

Gexeral : Referring to yonr commuuicatiou of tlie 20tli March relative to the cases 
of Mike Oliver, late Company G, Thirteenth United States Colored Troops, James 
Ponder, Company G, Fifteenth United States Colored Troops, and James Bobbins, Com- 
pany I, TeutltiUnited States Colored Troops, I have the honor to inform you that the same 
has been submitted to the Acting Secretary of War, who has decided that the War De- 
partment cannot undertake to correspond with the agents of the late Bureau, but 
looks to you to settle and arrange all the business of the Bureau up to the time it was 
turned over to the Adjutant-General, and to present any business left unfinished and 
now requiring settlement in such form that it can be properly arranged ; therefore 
your recommendation that General Balloch, late chief disbursing officer, be called upon 
direct to pay over such money in those cases for which he is liable, is not approved. 

In the case of Robbins, the Acting Secretary of War is of the opinion, after a careful 
consideration of the facts as reported by you, that you are individually liable for the 
amount, as you have never accounted for the same as required by law. The fact that 
this identical money was by you turned over to Major Brown does not relieve you, as the 
amount went toward making up your balance due the United States, as shown by 
your accounts. 

As communication from this Office of February 5, 1873, has developed the fact that 
there are other eases similar to the ones mentioned in said communication, the acting 
Secretary of War directs that you furnish this Office with a list of all cases in which 
checks were issued in payment of receipted vouchers and the proceeds thereof not jiaid 
to the claimant or transferred to this Office, or otherwise accounted for as directed by 
law, and to take immediate steps to pay over, or cause to be paid, to Capt. James Mc- 
Millan, chief disbursing officer, freedmen's branch, Adjutant-General's Office, the 
amount necessary to settle with said claimants. 



• 494 

I return herewith, as requested, the paper belonging to Major Brown, inclosnre No. 4, 
to 1855, F. B., A. G. O., 1873. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

^ Adjutant- General. 
General O. O. Howard. U. S. J., 

Late Commixsioner B., F. and A. L., Washington. D. C. 

Question. That amount, under protest, was then paid over? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[The witness then read the following letter:] 

War Department, 
Washington Ciiy, June 29, 1872. 
Dear General: The act of Congress places the Freedmen's Bureau iu charge of the 
War Department, and General Order No. 55 has been issued carrying the law into 
effect. In making this change, i-equired by the law, it gives me pleasure to bear witness 
to the zeal, energy, and integrity which have, in my opinion, characterized your man- 
agement of the JBureau. In the field, when I was your subordinate, in the Army of 
the Tennessee, I observed the gallantry and ability which marked your conduct from 
the day of the battle of Ezra Church until the end. Since I have been here I have had 
occasion at times to expi'ess my opinion as to your administration of the Bureau, and 
I do not hesitate to say that, in my judgment, its affairs have been conducted by you 
■with honor and integrity that cannot be questioned. It gives me pleasure to say this 
without solicitation from yourself or your friends. 
I am, general, very trnly yours, 

WM. W. BELKNAP. 
General O. 0. Howard, 

United States Artny. 

The Counsel por the Accused said : AA^e have one other letter 
■which we would like to offer, and to which General Howard has called 
my attention. It is his letter of acceptance of the office of president 
of the Howard University. This letter was offered quite a long time 
ago, and excluded. 

[At the request of counsel for the accused the witness produced the 
letter, which was shown to the judge-advocate.] 

The Judge-Advocate said : I desire to make a formal objection to 
that letter. It does not come within the purview of this case. 

[The objection was overruled, and the letter was read, as follows :] 

Washington, D. C, April 6, 1869. 
Dear Sir : Your official notification of my election, on the 5th Instant, to the office 
of president of the university is just received. 

Thanking the trustees for the confidence they repose in me, and yourself for the 
courteous manner in which you notify me of their choice, I wish to ^y that I will 
accept the office with the understanding that my continuance therein shall be but 
temporary, and that the execution of the duties imposed shall iu no way interfere 
with performance of my official trusts under the Government of the United States. 
A'ery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Major- General United States Army. 
Prof. W. F. Bascom, 

Secretary Board of Trustees (pro tem.) Howard University. 

The witness was then cross-examined as follows: 
By the Judge- Advocate : 

Question. You said something in your direct examination about the 
list which had been fnrnished by the Adjutant-General to General 
Howard, as being incorrect in some respects as to the docnments which 
the Adjutant-General desired General Howard to produce. Do you 
know why, or have you any basis upon which to ground an answer as 
to why, those lists were incorrect? 

Answer. I do not think I said those lists were incorrect. I said that 



495 

the station at which Major Seymour of the Artillery was said to be the 
officer in charge, was reported in that list as having no records, and 1 
stated the reason he gave for not having the records from that station. 

Question. That was what you meant by " incorrect ?" 

Answer, If 1 said " incorrect," that is what I meant. 

Question. With reference to the clerical force which you say General 
Howard was furnished hist summer, do you know whether he has 
made application for further clerical force to assist him at an earlier or 
later period since the discontinuance of the Bureau '^ 

Answer. I am not prepared to say that he has or has not, but I think 
that he has ; I think he made application to have the clerical aid con- 
tinued to him. It is a matter of record ; I think he made application 
and it was denied him. 

Question. Have you any data by which you can show that it was 
denied him ? 

Answer. I can obtain from the records whether he made such appli- 
cation or not. I would like to say to the court as a reason for my not 
speaking more fnlly on this i)oint, that I was ordered away at the time 
when this clerical force was employed ; and when I returned they were 
discharged. All I know is from what I have heard and seen of the 
general records since. 

Question. If you find by examination of the record that such appli- 
cation was denied, 1 desire that you would bring it to me. 

Answer. I will do so. 

Question, Those books that you read from yesterday — ai)parently let- 
ter-press-books — do they contain personal letters, or do they contain 
official documents ! 

Answer. They contain every letter, official or personal, of any kind or 
character, that the general writes, or has written ; that is, they are sup- 
posed to contain them all ; and they do contain now all that he writes 
since the discontinuance of the Bureau. 

Question. They do not contain anything that was written before the 
discontinuance of the Bureau of an official nature ? 

Answer. No, sir, unless it is in reference to the Indian work ; not in 
reference to the Freedmen's Bureau. 

Question. Did General Howard return the letter of January 8 of his 
to General Vincent afterward '? You may remember you took this letter 
to the Adjutant-General's Office on the 8th January, and General Vin- 
cent handed you a letter which had already been prepared, as I under- 
stood you 1 

Answer. ISo, he told me a letter had been sent by him, and was prob- 
ably in transitu at that time. Did you ask me if General Vincent handed 
me back this letter or returned this letter of January 8 '? 

Question. No, I asked you if General Howard subsequently returned 
his letter to General V^incent, 

Answer, He did, added a postscript, and dated it the 15th January. 

Question. Do you know why that was retained by him so long before 
returning it to General Vincent — from the 9th to the loth 1 

Answer. In order to comply with the requirements of General Vin- 
cent's letter of the 7th. 

Question. How do you know that Major Brown is responsible for the 
$87.25 in the Ambers, House, and Eobbins cases, and the $208.50 1 You 
said yesterday on investigation it was ascertained that he was respon- 
sible for these sums ; now how did you know it'^ 

Answer. It is about as briefly and succinctly stated in the letter to 
Major Brown in one of those press-books, which Iprepared, as I can state 



496 

it. I fiud these two checks for $S7.25 and $208.50 were given to Major 
Brown, either old checks indorsed over or new checks given in place of 
them — of the copy and memorandniu of cases where vouchers had been 
filed in the Treasury and money returned ; and when I called upon Mr. 
Terry to assist me in tracing up the cases, he asked me what the names 
were of the cases. I just merely mentioned the names and he said, " I 
know all about those cases," and he at once went to the books I had 
and pointed them out; told me, " I recollect when those checks came 
back, and when they were drawn. They were all turned over to Major 
Brown, and he kept a separate list of them." I then went to Mr. Moody 
and asked him to give me assistance to make up the list. Mr. Moody 
looked at the list and said to me, " Those are the cases for which Major 
Brown made us a tender of a check, and we decided not to take it, or 
we advised him not to pay it, because our books did not show him to 
be responsible for it." 

Question. What sort of evidence was it that showed those sums had 
been turned over to Major Brown or General Howard? 

Answer. In one instance was a check drawn to General Howard's 
order, and indorsed by him over to Major Brown, a copy of which we 
obtained from the assistant treasurer in Baltimore. In the other case 
General Howard drew his check direct on the Treasury Department in 
June, 1872, to the order of Major Brown. 

Question. Have you this mornnig the order detailing General How- 
ard in Arizona? 

Answer. I have not ; I did not understand I was directed to bring it. 
I was asked if I had it ; I said no, it was a matter of record. 

Question. Do you know the date ? 

Answer. I do not; I think it was simply an order in the form of a 
letter from the Secretary of War directing General Howard to report 
to the Secretary of the Interior, and then came an order from the Adju- 
tant-General ordering him formally, by special orders, to Arizona. 

Question. You sav he was surprised when asked to go. When was 
that ? 

Answer. It was probably the same day or the day after that he had 
the interview called for by the letter which I read from Mr. Delano. 
He told me the result of his interview, and expressed surprise that he 
had been selected for this particular work. 

Question. Have you any knowledge of the circumstances under which 
the Secretary of War gave that letter of June 29, 1872 ? 

Answer. I have none whatever. 

Question. You are familiar with the act of July 25, 18G8, second 
section, which provided for the withdrawal of the Bureau from the sev- 
eral States, and its operations to be discontinued, except the educational 
department, of the collection and payment of bounties department — the 
discontinuance to be the 1st day of January, 1809 ? 

Answer. I presume I have seen this law and read it. I should not 
have been able to recollect it without seeing it. 

Question. From that date, January 1, 1809, up to June 30, 1872, do 
you know whether or not there was ample time within which to have 
secured all the records and arranged them for proper reference ■? 

Answer. The archives ? 

Question. The archives ; yes. 

Answer. I should say there was time enough with a proper force. 

[Examination closed.] 



497 

Dayid S. Blue then came before the court, and being duly sworn, 
testified as follows : 

Direct examinatiou by the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. David S. Blue ; reside in Wasliiugtou ; book-keeper Second 
National Bank at the present time. 

Question. State if you were employed in the Freedmen's Bureau at 
any time ; if so, in what capacity !? 

Answer. I went into the Freedmen's Bureau on the 23d of July, 1SG7, 
and left on the 15th of March, 1872 ; I was employed in the capacity of 
assistant book-keeper. 

Question. What books came under your charge I 

Answer. The general ledgers of the institution. 

Question. Did that embrace all the accounts of every nature ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. In what condition did you leave your books, when you left 
the Bureau ? 

Answer. They were in good condition ; our balance-sheet was taken 
oft' monthly and proved, from the time I commenced them until I left 
the Bureau. 

Question. That included all money accounts of every nature of the 
Bureau f 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Cross-e.vani Ina tlon. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What books do you refer to as being in good condition ? 

Answer. The general ledgers. They contain the accounts of the in- 
stitution, the expenditures, and all appropriations, and the classification 
of accounts of officers, in fact, all accounts of the Bureau. 

Question. What did you make up those ledgers from 1 

Answer. From vouchers and the expenditures of money, which were 
taken up monthly. Everything was placed upon the cash-book. All 
cash expenditures were placed upon the cash-book and classified at the 
end of the month and put uuder their appropriate heads in this ledger. 

Question. Did you call them ledgers or registers ? 

Answer. We called those ledgers regular "cash-book," "journal," 
and " ledger." 

Question. Were there any of them you called bounty registers '? 

Answer. That I had nothing to do with. They do not come under the 
ex})enditures ; do not come in the regular books. 

Question. Is this the book that you kept ? [pointing to the irregular 
retained-bounty-fund register.] 

Answer. No, sir. 

Question. Then you did not know anything about the bounty reg- 
ister ! 

Answer. The accounts of expenditures of General Balloch were all 
kept in a book ; his accounts were rendered monthly, and they were 
placed in an account-current book. There was an account-current book 
in which the accounts of all the ofiicers who expended money for the 
Bureau were x^laced. 

Question. In books that you called ledgers ? 

Answer. No ; those were account-current books. 

Question. Did you have charge of those books ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 
32 H c 



498 

Question. Did you make up the accounts-current ? 

Answer. Accounts-current were made up by bis clerk and rendered in 
to ns, and the vouchers were examined and duplicates retained and 
proper vouchers sent to the Treasury of the United States. 

Question. When accounts-current were made up and sent in to you, 
what did you do? 

Answer. We proved them by vouchers and then entered them on our 
book. 

Question. Were certificates on hand from the Second Auditor's OfiBce 
taken up I 

Answer. The last month or two I Avas in the Bureau I had some knowl- 
edge of that ; before that I had none. They came from the Second 
Auditor, and were taken up in what was called the claim division, ex- 
amined, and the proper amount due attorneys deducted therefrom: then 
they were sent to the clerk who had charge of the register and cash- 
book of bounties. They were entered in the register and charged up as 
"cash.'' These certificates were taken to General Howard, signed by 
him, and then sent to the Paymaster-General, and a warrant received^ 
drawing the money for the same. 

Question. They were entered, then, on your accounts-current and 
ledgers as cash 1 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

[Examination closed.] 

The testimony of the witness was then read over to him, and pro- 
nounced correct as recorded. 

Hon. John M. Brodhead was then recalled, and examined as fol- 
lows : 

By the Accused, (through his counsel :) 

Question. Are you familiar with the law creating the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau, and the subsequent legislation connected with the Bureau ? 

Answer. Generally I am. I have a general knowlege of the laws. 

Question. What peculiarity, if any, has the original act and the sub- 
sequent act ? 

Answer. I think they have this peculiarity, that with two exceptions, 
and those not Aery important, I think none of the laws made provis- 
ion for responsibility to the Treasury — to render any account to the 
Treasury. 

Question. Did they have any peculiarity with regard to the grant of 
power to the Commissioner ? 

Answer. Yes, they certainly had. The original law, I think it was of 
1865, gave to him remarkable powers ; seemed to place things under his 
charge almost exclusively at his own discretion. 

Question. Have the subsequent acts the same peculiarity I 

Answer. They all run in that same direction. 

Question. In the settlement of an account by the accounting officer 
of the Treasury, does it import any offense against a disbursing officer 
that a portion of his accounts are suspended. 

Answer. None whatever. There are no accounts of magnitude of 
any disbursing officer in which there are not suspensions. They are 
generally susceptible of explanation, and are admitted on explanation. 
Probably nineteen-twentieths of all suspended accounts of disbursing 
officers are finally admitted to their credit. 

Question. It is, then, a matter of ordinarily uniform occurrence ? 



499 

Answer. O, yes; a very coDstant occurrence. 

Question. With regard to the matter of certain alleged erroneous bal- 
ances upon the first of the month, in the second communication to the Sec- 
retary of War, being a part of exhibits in this case upon which a report 
from you was read yesterday, had the same matter been returned to the 
Attorney-General ? 

Answer. I have no personal knowledge of it ; it is mere hearsay. 

Question. You know it as you know other departmental matters ? 

Answer. I have heard it as I have heard other departmental matters, 
but 1 have not seen it. 

Question. If he had made any decision upon that, that there was any- 
thing in the charge, would that decision have come to you 1 

Answer. I suppose it would have certainly been sent to me by the 
head of the Department to whom it was made. 

Question. Was any such decision ever sent to you ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

Crosse,vami nation. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. What investigation did you make of the subject of over- 
stated or deficit balances, mentioned in part two, Exhibit B, pages 1 
and 2! 

Answer. I sent for the clerk of General Balloch and for General Bal- 
loch himself, to explain those balances, although I had, previously to^ 
his coming, made up my own opinion of the way in which it would occur,, 
for it was very rare that the Treasury balances would agree with that 
of the disbursing officer, owing to the manner in which the business was 
transacted. This clerk brought up the book, showing these various bal- 
ances as reported by General Balloch. I had not time to go through with 
them all, and I took up four ditt'erent places at random, and I found that 
the explanation that he made brought them out perfectly correct. I was 
satisfied, therefore, that they were generally correct. I then made a 
short report to the Secretary of the Treasury, who had referred the mat- 
ter to me. I there said it would be impossible for the Treasury balance 
to agree with almost any disbursing officer's account. For instance, a 
requisition comes down for i50,000 in favor of a disbursing officer who 
may be in California. We charge him with it to date, and he may not 
get it for several weeks; in the mean time, if he renders a report of his 
balance anywhere, there would be a discrepancy of $50,000 between the 
Treasury balance and his own. 

Question. That is, then, the only examination you made of this mat- 
ter? 

Answer. That is all. 

Question. You did not go to your books to verify your examination f 

Answer. I could not have told by mj" books. 1 had to go to another 
Department — the Treasury Department. 

Question. Therefore, when you make this statement, you do not state 
whether these deficits are true or not ? 

Answer. I only found them, taking the Treasurer's statements and 
the explanations that he made in regard to a discrepancy, that they 
tallied it in those four cases. 

Question. Provided his statements covered the actual state of facts ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. A letter from you was introduced yesterday, dated Febru- 
ary 9, 1874, in which you say with reference to the investment in 



500 

bonds of funds approi)iiated by Congress for the support of the Freed- 
men;s Bureau, that General Howard might legally and lyroperly invest 
those funds in United States bonds .' 

^Vnswer. Are you not mistaken about the funds? Those were pay- 
ments that had been made on account of bounties remaining in his 
Imnds. for whicli General Iloward was made payee — not money drawn 
from the Treasury, but money that had already been j»laced in the hands 
of disbursing olticers to pay these adjudicated accounts of colored 
soldiers. 

(Question. Please state nnder wLatglaw you made the decision that 
there was such a power in General Howard to make that investment ? 

Answer. There is no special law about it, but I state here in this let- 
ter that there is no law to prevent the payee of adjudicated or settled 
accounts from investing the money. When General Howard hrst came 
to me I looked into these two laws that are referred to here, one of 
them the act of 1S4G, and I stated that I did not think that these pro- 
hibitions that are contained especially in the IGth section of the act of 
1840 applied to this case. The case was a very auonudous one ; it had 
not arisen before, and was not likely to occur again ; but 1 thought he 
might take this money that was accumulated in his bauds — the pay- 
ments were frequently very large, sometimes $30,000 or $40,000 a day — 
that he might take these moneys and put them in United States bonds 
and dei)osit them in the Treasury, and account to the accounting officers 
of the Treasury for the interest. 1 understood at the time, without hav- 
ing seen General Spinner — I nnderstood that he had previously given 
an opinion very much to the same effect. That was done. I have not 
any doubt of the correctness of it now, and it proved 1o be a pretty good 
bargain for the Government, because they made $19,000 on the transac- 
tion. That is the kind of defalcation that is always very agreeable to 
me. 

Question. Then the Government made this 819,000 out of itself? 

Answer. Yes, certainly. Thej^ stopped the interest to that extent ou 
their own bonds. 

Question. What did yon decide he had to do in this nmtter of account- 
ing ? 

Answer. That he was to account for this money precisely in the same 
way he would account for any money drawn from the Treasury. 

Question. Did you, then, decide he had a right to expend any portion 
of that money for any purpose he saw tit ? 

Answer. 1 did not. My opinion, and expression of that opinion, was 
what I have given in this matter. It did not go beyond that at all. 

Question. As you gave that opinion in reference to moneys obtained 
by General Howard under the resolution appro^'ed March 29, 1867, how 
do you make that coincide with the third section of that act which says 
all money held and disbursed under the provisions of this resolution 
shall he held and dishnrscd under the same rules and regulations governing 
other disbursing officers of the Armi/. 

Answer. As I stated when I was here before, that must be under- 
stood with the limitations that surrounded the position of the Commis- 
sioner of the Freedmen's Bureau. You could not apjdy to him all the 
rules that apply to a quartermaster, and you cannot apply to^a quarter- 
master all the rules that apply to a commissary ; there must be some 
variation. In that very act itself there are some rules founded on the 
act of 1857 that must be held to be null ; because the act of 1857 de- 
clares that all over $20 shall be paid by a check, by a draft, A\hile this 
joint resolution prescribes that payment shall be made in currency. 



501 

Of course, all tlie inles and regulations of tlie various Aimy officers 
caunot^apply. It must be taken with certain reasonable limitations, as 
a matter of course. 

(Question. It is very plain that tbe act on the subject of payment of 
checks was pro tanto repealed with reference to this resolution of March 
29, 1807. But he was to make those payments in currency. Had he 
any authority whatever, prior to making those payments in currency, to 
take that money out of the United States Treasury ? 

Answer. He had a right when he got a check, and the multitude of 
checks that he got every day — he had a right to take those checks, as I 
suppose he did take them, to the disbursing officer and draw the cur- 
rency out. 

Question. As a matter of fact did he not act in many res]iects the 
same as any other disbursing officer receiving money ^Vow a disbuising 
officer f 

Answer, Yes, sir. Certainly, so far as hisaccountability to the Treas- 
ury was concerned, or to the Government. The idea was, he being made 
payee, he was not to be considered as owner ; but it was put into his 
hands. Also, he was made payee for a special purpose and it was pro- 
vided for in the act. 

Question. Do not the laws provide that disbursing officers shall keep 
fliHheir funds in the Treasury, except as they require them to make 
payments'? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. Then, if such is the case, how do you reconcile your author- 
itj" which 3'ou gave him, with such laws ? 

Answer. He had these funds on hand, and the question was, in keep- 
ing them in the Treasury, whether he might not invest them in United 
States bonds and make this profit, and thereby save the United States 
so much. 

Question. Suppose the Quartermaster-General receives funds from the 
Payn\aster-Geueral for some purpose or other, would you say that pend- 
ing the use of those funds for the purpose for which they were trans- 
ferred, he would have a right to invest them in United States bond's ? 

Answer. That would of course depend entirely upon the law. If the 
Quartermaster-General was m-A(\& payee of a settled account, and held 
those funds for certain purposes, under the same circumstances that the 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau did, I should say that it would be 
perfectly proper. 

Question. General Howard, when he receipted to the Pay Depart- 
ment for these bounty-moneys, had to account for them to the Treasury, 
did he not ? 
• Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. So far as he was concerned, it was not an adjudicated 
claim, was it*? 

Answer. So far as ///.s responsibility for the whole was concerned, it 
was not; none of these. All this vast mass of claims had been adjudi- 
cated at the Treasury, and the balance found to these various individ- 
uals, so far as this mass of money which was received was concerned, 
General Howard had to account to the Treasury for the whole, of course. 

Question. By whom are payments made to white soldiers for bounties? 

Answer. By paymasters. 

(Question. And the certificate settled by the Second Auditor ? 

Answer. Generally. Formerly they m ere paid directly by the pay- 
master, and on. the pay-rolls. 

Question. You hold that a paymaster having received a number of 



502 

those certificates might, prior to the actual pajineut of them, invest 
the proceeds in United States bonds I 

Answer. In every case where he was made a payee he might. But 
there has no instance occurred where a paymaster was made a payee of 
a settled certificate. 

Question. Please describe exactly what you mean by " payee" in this 
connection. 

Answer. 1 mean a man to whom money has been settled and is to be 
jiaid. In these accounts the paymaster is the payor. After the adjudi- 
cation of the claims they are sent to the paymaster to pay. 

Question. Was not General Howard also a payor, as representing the 
Government? 

Answer. He was to find out these parties, certainly, after the money 
came into his hands from the paymaster; he was to hunt them out, as 
prescribed by law. 

Question. Did he not have to account for that money the same as 
any other disbursing officer of the Government? 

Answer. Certainly, he had to account for it as a disbursing officer. 

Question. This claim, so far as he was concerned, is not a settled 
claim ? 

Answer. Do you mean each particular claim was not a settled claim ? 

Question. Yes; so far as he was individually concerned. 

Answer. I don't know that I can make it any plainer than that he 
would have to account for all this money that came into his hands as 
trustee, if you will consider it so. 

Question. Tlien, so far as he was individually concerned, it was not a 
settled claim until it finally got into the hands of the beneficiary and an 
account rendered to the Treasury? 

Answer. Yes; the claim is settled, so far as the Treasury is concerned, 
when it went into the hands of General Howard. General Howard's 
account was not settled until he had rendered it and it had been passed 
upon by the accounting officers, and that account included these various 
claims that had already been adjudicated in the Treasury. 

Question, When Congress makes a particular appropriation for a par- 
ticular purpose, and that money is transferred to the credit of the officer 
designated in the law to make the expenditure, do you call that a settled 
claim ? 

Answer. Certainly not, no more than I would call a requisition for 
#50,000 jdaced to the credit of an officer a settled claim when he has 
disbursed it. 

Question. The Quartermaster-General is invested with certain powers 
in reference to certain claims, I believe ? 

Auswer. Yes, sir. Do you refer to the act of 1864 ? 

Question. Yes. 

Answer. Yes, sir; that is to say, the power of the accounting officer 
is restricted in regard to a certain class of claims to the amounts recom- 
mended by those officers respectively. They may reject what is recom- 
mended, but they cannot go beyond the recommendation. 

(Question. When he settles a claim in that way what is done with it? 

Answer. The (ijuartermaster General merely recommends to the Third 
Auditor ; the law says this class of accounts may be paid when the 
Quartermaster-General recommends. 

By a Member of the Court : 
Question. The law, as 1 understand it, makes it tlie duty of the Quar- 
termaster-General to examine, and, if convinced that it is just, and the 



503 

claim is allowed, to refer aud report it to the Third Auditor with a rec- 
ommeudatiou for settleaient. 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. There is uothiug in it about the duty of the accounting 
officer. 

Answer. Not at all. But then the accounting officer would have no 
right to settle it without your recommendation. When you have recom- 
mended we cannot exceed that recommendation, but we can go below 
it. 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. After such an account has been allowed by the Auditor 
what is done with it ? 

Answer. It is transmitted to the proper Comptroller. 

Question. For confirmation ? What then ! 

Answer. For confirmation. The papers are then all returned to the 
officer who is by law the custodian. 

Question. Hcfw is it paid? 

Answer. If there is a balance to be paid, then it will be transmitted 
to the Secretary- of War for the requisition ; the Secretary then issues 
the requisition, if he concurs, and a warrant is issued, and a check. 

Question. Which goes to the Paymaster f 

Answer. It is generally paid at the Treasury, almost invariably — 
these cases that I speak of. 

Question. I suppose, sometimes, they have been jiaid through the 
Paymaster? 

Answer. No, I think not. I think they are paid by requisition. 

Question. Pending the actual payment, and after that account has 
been settled, would you hold that the officer who had to pay that account 
would have the right to take that money and invest it in United States 
bonds! 

Answer. Why, certainly not. I have endeavored to give my views, 
founded upon the difference between a payor aud a payee. He cannot 
be a payee. 

Question. He would remain a j)ayor ? 

Answer. He would remain a payor. 

Question. But in reference to General Howard, who was the payee, 
all responsibility ceased after he got the money ? 

Answer. No ; I don't think by any means all responsibility ceased 
after that. He stood in a double capacity. There he was payee of 
this mass of claims; then he was payor to them. He had to render his 
accounts, showing how he disposed of the whole. 

Question. Might you not have been in error in making that decision f 

Answer. It is very possible. I am sorry to say there may be such 
probability in a great many of my decisions. 

Question. I suppose you have sometimes had occasion to reverse 
your decision ? 

Answer. I have. 

Question. There are instances where officers prefer claims for re-im- 
bursement, a few years back, where such claims have been allowed, 
and ordered to be paid; would you in such instance, pending a payment, 
say that the officer who was to make that payment would have a right 
to invest that money in United States bonds ? 

Answer. O, no ; certainly not. 

Question. V/as not the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, un- 
der this resolution of March 29, 1867, a disbursing officer ? 



504 

Answer. I think he was ; that is, Mith some liiintations. 

Question. That he had to pay in currency instead of checks ? 

Answer. Yes, sir. 

Question. But he had to account for the money he disbursed th& 
same as any other disbursing ofticer ? 

Answer, Congress chose to put him in charge of these funds for these 
incompetents. He had drawn the money, and then the question came np. 
It is certainly a very fair subject for discussion, whether he had a 
right or not. My own view decided that he had ii right. Other gentle- 
men take a different view. I believe that Mr. Welles was rather in- 
clined to think it ought not to be, although he had not investigated the 
subject. 

Question. Did you decide the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau to be an agent for the Government or an agent for the iudividual, 
in making these payments ? 

Answer. He was an oflicer and paid over this class of funds, having 
a specific duty — to hunt up the proper persons to receive the money^ 
ami pay it. He had to account to the Government. He was, of course, 
not the agent of the parties themselves, because he had no discretion 
in the matter w^hatever — no volition 5 it sprung entirely from the reso- 
lution of Congress. 

Question. You say the law has failed to provide for an accounting to 
the Treasury ; in w hat respect did it fail ? 

Answer. They Said nothing about it except in these two or three in- 
stances that I mentioned, I think before a committee of Congress, and 
one was in regard to some school jjroperty. 

Question. Is there not a general law that officers shall always account 
for public moneys coming into their hands ? 

Answer. There is no general law of that kind ; but all are required 
to render their accounts at the Treasury, and to have them adjusted there. 
It was under that general law of 1817 that these accounts of the Freed- 
men's Bureau were decided to be properl^^ rendered to the Treasury De- 
partment. 

Question. You do not know whether the Attorney-General has ren- 
dered any decision on this subject of deficit balances ? 

Answer. I do not. 

By the Court : 

Question. Please look at G. W. Balloch's letter of January 3, 1871, 
page 8, part second. Exhibit B, and say if the sums therein mentioned 
as having been invested in United States bonds, to wit, one of $300,00(>, 
and one of $279,375, are or are not included in those which you state it 
was proper for the Commissioner of the Freedman's Bureau to invest in 
United States bonds ? 

Answer. I think they are. ' 

Question. From what ai)propriation were these two sums! 

Answer. It was money received in payments of these settled accounts 
of these colored parties for bounty. It had accumulated. I suppose 
the general would get $30,000 or $10,000 a day. 

Question. It was not any i>art of the appropriation for the Freedmen's 
Bureau! 

Answer. ISTo, sir. 

(Question. In the resolution of ^March 20, 18G7, section 1 makes the 
Commissioner a payee of adjudicated claims of colored soldiers' boun- 
ties ; section 2 makes him responsible for safe custody and faithful dis- 
bursement of the funds "hereby" intrusted to him j section 3 requires 



505 

tliat all iijoney bold aiul disbursed under the provisions of this resolu- 
tion shall be held and disbursed uuder the same rules and regulations 
governing other disbursing officers of the Army. Have j'ou examined 
and considered the question whether among these are not those of the 
act of June 14th, 1806,^^to be included ? 

Answer. I have not made any examination with that view. 

Question. The act of 18GG says that money shall not be used in any 
way, but must be deposited in the Treasury. 

Answer. Yes ; and the act of 1840, also. 

Question. Does not the act of June 15, 1800, give to disbursing 
officers of the Freedmen's Bureau a latitude and discretion unknown to 
other disbursing officers uiuler the laws ? 

Answer. It certainly does in regard to the class of payments men- 
tioned iu that act. 

[Examination closed. [ 

The Counsel for the Accused said : We propose now to close, if the 
court please, with a statement of General Howard ; and we will take 
the sense of the court, with its permissn)n, as to the manner iu which 
it shall be made, whether under oath or not under oath. I wish to state 
that the general voluntarily offers himself as a witness for examina- 
tion, if the court so desire. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I would suggest to the court that the 
proper time for making his statement would be at the conclusion of the 
whole case. If it is proposed that General Howard shall make his own 
argument, well and good ; if it is proposed to make it through his coun- 
sel, well and good ; but I do not nnderstand that there can be two argu- 
ments upon the part of the defense. His offering himself as a witness 
is another matter ; and I would like to present some objections to the 
court. 

The President of the Court. State them now. 

The Judge-Advocate. Courts martial and courts of inquiry are 
courts that are governed by the common-law rules of evidence. I under- 
stand there is now a bill in Congress, which has gone through one Flouse 
and is pending in the other branch, allowing accused persons to testify 
in their own behalf in courts of the United States, including courts- 
martial and courts of inquiry, specihcally byj^mme. In this case certain 
charges have been made by officers of the Government. Congress spe- 
cihcally, by act, has referred these charges to this court for investiga- 
tion, allowing General Howard " the privilege of the same right of 
challenge as allowed by law in trial by courts-martial." The question of 
whether a person could testify iu his own behalf came up in 1870 on a 
General Order of the War Department, No. 38, Headquarters of the 
Army, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, April 0, 1870 : 

The followiug ord«r has been received from tlie War Department : 

Upon the (juestion of admitting the testimony, in their own behalf, of parties ac- 
cnsed before a court-martial, the Judge-Advocate-Geueral of tlie Army has given 
the opinion "That no, authority, less or other than that of Congress, \vonid be compe- 
tent to introduce into the law governing the proceedings of courts-martial so grave 
and fundamental an innovation." 

Concurring in this opinion, the Secretary of War directs that, except in the usual 
form of " delense," which persons on trial are permitted to submit, but not under oath, 
the testimony of accused persons shall not be taken iu their own cases before courts- 
martial. 

By command of General Sherman : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adju ta n t- Genera I. 

Tht.t is specifically in the case of courts-martial, but the rides as laid 



50G 

dowu in works on military law are to the effect that courts-martial and 
courts of inquiry are governed by the common-law rules of evidence 
unless specifically changed by act of Congress. 

The Counsel for the Accused. We do not make any question about 
the law. But we refer to a law which applies to the District of Co- 
lumbia. 

The Judge-Advocate. The provision to which the gentleman refers 
I am f.imiliar with. The same provision ap])lies in the State of New 
York; they have almost the identical statute. In a court-martial in New 
York the accused desired to testify in his own behalf, on the ground 
that he was a citizen of New York, and that the laws of New York in 
all criminal proceedings allowed him to testify. But it was a court of 
the United States, and the laws of the United States, while allowin^g in 
civil proceedings parties to testify in their own behalf, did not in pro- 
ceedings of a criminal nature. The court can see that if one rule should 
obtain in one State and a different rule in another State an authority 
which had power to convene a court could do great injustice to a party 
accused, by sending the case to be tried or inquired into in a locality 
where such a rule did not prevail. In Greenleaf on Evidence, it is laid 
down in regard to the "competencj^ of witnesses," in paragraph 327, 
volume 1, that " it rejects the testimony of first parties." 

As to courts of in(iuiry there are some remarks by Mr. Greenleaf in 
the Hon. Isaac Kedfield's edition which I quote as follows, in paragraph 
475, page -ilo, volume 3d : 

Courts of inquiry iu Englaud are not regulated hy any statute, nor by any stand- 
ing regulation, but depend on the will of the sovereign, or of the superior officer 
convoking the court, both as to the officers who compose it, and as to every particular 
of its constitution. It is not a judicial body, but is rather a council, having no power 
to compel the attendance of witnesses not of the army or navy, as the case may be, nor 
to administer oaths ; nor is any issue formed which it is competent to try. But in the 
Amei'icau military and naval service these courts have a legal constitution and au- 
thority. Military courts of inquiry may be ordered by the general or conmiandiug 
officer, consisting of one, two, or three officers and a judge-advocate or other suitable 
person, as a recorder, all of Avhom are sworn. They have the same powers as courts- 
martial to summon witnesses and to examine them on oath, and the parties accused 
may cross-examine the witnesses. 

Then in paragraph 488 : 

Persons incompetent as witnesses at common law by reason of deficiency of under- 
standing, insensibility to the obligations of an oath, direct pecuniary interest in the 
matter in controversy, or for other causes, are for the same reasons incompetent to 
testify in courts-martial. 

Then paragraph 498 : 

Invet^^uvA to puhVtc militarji records, \t has been adjudged that t\\Q report of a court 
of inquiry is a privileged communication, and cannot Ije called for without the consent 
of the superior military authority which convened the court, nor can an office copy of 
it be admitted without such permission. It stands on the footing of other secrets of 
state hei'ctofore mentioned. 

That is in the Biitish service. 

In the English service, the proceedings of a court of inquiry are hel-d not admissible 
in a court-marl ial as evidence of the facts detailed in the testimony there recorded ; and 
rightly, for tiiose courts in England are not considered as judicial bodies ; they have 
not power to administer oaths, nor any inherent power to summon witnesses; and the 
right of the accused party to appear or take any i)art in the proceedings is questioned ; 
it being rather a council than a court. 

But in the American service, as we have seen, courts of inquiry are established by 
law, .and have a judicial character, with the same power with courts-martial to sum- 
mon and examine witnesses, and giving the accused the same right to cross-examine 
and interrogate them. Their proceedings, therefore, are expressly made admissible in 
evidence in courts-martial in cases not capital, nor extending to the dismission of an 



507 

officer ; provided, that the circumstances are such that oral testimouy caunot be ob- 
tained. 

See the 92d Article of War ou this subject. 

The President of the Court said : The question before the court is, 
■whether General Howard shall be allowed to divide his defense into a 
statement of fact which he proposes to address to the court, and a legal 
argument by his attorneys. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I have no objection to such a course, if 
he desires it. But he offers himself as a witness. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : We wish to submit to the court 
for its preference, whether General Howard shall make his statement 
under oath or not. He is ready to be sworn, and to submit himself to 
examination and cross-examination as a witness ; and for the authority 
for the court to allow that I refer to the statute of July 2, ISIJI. We 
would like the court to remember that in the early stage of this trial it 
was announced more than once by the president of the court that Gen- 
eral Howard would have an oi>portunity to make a statement, and it 
would receive i)roper consideration. We did not understand that to be 
as an argument, but simply a statement of fact; and if there is any 
argument in it is there lmproi)crly. This act reads : 

Be it enacted, Sfc That on the trial of any issue joined, or of any matter or question, or 
on any inquiry arising- in any suit, action, or other i>r()ceeding in any court of justice 
in the District of Columbia, or before any person having- by law, or by consent of par- 
ties, authority to hear, receive, and examine evidence, within said District, the parties 
thereto, and the persons in whose behalf any such action or other proceeding may be 
brought or defended, and any and all persons interested in the same shall, except as here- 
inafter excepted, be competent and compellable to give evidence, either riraroceov by 
deposition, according to the practice of the court, on behalf of either or any of the 
parties to the said action or other proceeding: Frovided, That nothing herein contained 
shall render any person who is charged with any offense in any criminal proceeding 
competent or compellable to give evidence for or against himself or herself, or shall 
render any person compellable to answer any question tending to criminate himself or 
herself, or shall in any criminal proceeding render any husband competent or compell- 
able to give evidence for or against his wife, or any wife competent or compellable to 
give evidence for or against her husband, or in any proceeding instituted in conse- 
quence of adultery ; nor shall any husband be compellable to disclose any communi- 
cation made to him by his wife during his marriage, nor shall any wife be compellable 
to disclose any connnunicatiou made to her by her husband during marriage. 

Under that law I think the court have a right to examine General 
Howard under oath. In that opinion Mr. Ketchuni agreed with me. 
But, as there might be a question about it, we i)referred to submit the 
whole matter to the discretion of the court, without argument. But 
we wish it to appear upon record that if General Howard could have 
been sworn, he does not shrink from it. This is not a criminal pro- 
ceeding; that is a regular indictment. 

The J UDtiE- Advocate said : The gentleman, by quoting the law, has 
shown to what it referred, namely, proceedings in an indictment in the 
District of Columbia. I shall be very glad to have General Howard 
testify here. But, as I have said, courts-martial and courts of inquiry 
are on the same basis. It has long been a settled principle of military 
proceedings, and well decided, that in courts martial the accused can- 
not testify in his own behalf Now. what may be the purposes for 
which proceedings of a court of impiiry may be used ? The Oi'd Article 
of War says that these proceedings are expressly made admissible 
" as evidence in conrts-martial in cases not capital, or exte.iding to 
the dismission of an ottici-r, provided that the circumstances are such 
that oral testimonv cannot be obtained.'' 



508 

This court, as I hud the honor to observe early in the case, was, in 
my judgment, acting very much, in making this investigation, as a 
United States commissioner woukl, to ascertain whether or not there 
was sufficient probable cause to induce a belief that an offense had been 
committed by General Howard, under the laws of the United States, 
If this court, from the evidence adduced here, finds that, in its opinion, 
on the facts presented, the accused may have been guilty of some crim- 
inal military offense for which he might be amenable to trial before a 
general court-martial, this court would recommend, in the usual mauner, 
to the Executive that in its opinion there should be an investigation be- 
fore a general court-martial. Consequently, this is in the nature of a 
criminal proceeding in the nature of a criminal investigation, not a 
civil trial. All investigations to asertain whether an offense has been 
committed, are in the nature of criminal i>roceedings. General How- 
ard's testimony would not be admissible before a general court-martial. 
Therefore, if his statement could c6me in here in the form of evidence, 
it might decide this court to do something, or to come to a conclusion 
which it would not come to if it was a general court-martial. In other 
words, before a general court-martial. General Howard would not be 
allowed to testify, while, if he conld testify before this court, it might 
decide there had been no offense committed, when, if he were to come 
before a general court-martial, he might be found guilty. 1 am sup- 
I)osing an extreme case, of course. It is for that reason that I have 
come to the conclusion, after looking somewhat into the matter, that, 
although I would like Geneial Howard to testify in his own behalf, there 
is no law for it. 

The Counsel for the Accused said: If the court will allow 
me, our purpose is answered by calling the attention of the court to 
the fact that there is such a law ; so that it may not be said afterward, 
by any person, that here was a law under which General Howard might 
have testified, and he would not. 

The President of the Court. I understand that you wish it 
recorded that you tender General Howard as a witness. 

The Counsel for the Accused. Yes, sir. 

[The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re- 
opened, the accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate 
announced as the decision of the court that the court does not consider 
itself justified by existing law to accept General Howard as a witness.] 

J. L. McGee appeared before the court, and being duly sworn in the 
presence of the accused, was examined and testified as follows : 

By the Judge-Advocate : 

Question. Please state your full name, occupation, and residence. 

Answer. J. L. McGee, now a clerk in the Pension-Office, residing at 
731i Tenth street. 

Question. Were you in the freedmen's branch of the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Office ; and, it so, when ? 

Answer. I was first employed there I believe, in August, 1872. 

Question. For how long ? 

Answer. Until April, 1873. 

Question. During that time had you occasion to do anything with 
letters received from the late Bureau ? 

Answer. Not /Vow the late Bureau, but to the late Bureau. 

Question. What did you do with them ? 

Answer. I had to copy the letters and brief and enter them in the 
i'ldex. 



509 

Question. How many ? 
Answer. Between 1,100 and 1,200. 
Question, On what subjects? 
Answer. In reference to bounties and claims. 

Question. Have you the record of them in this book? (A book which 
the witness had.) 
Answer. Yes, sir. 

(The book is marked, " Letters received, A, 1872."') 
[Examination closed.] 

John S. Moody was then recalled. 

A Member of the Court said: I desire to know what the judge-advo- 
cate proposes to prove. 

The President of the Court. Will yon please state what yon desire 
to examine the witness npon ? 

The Judcie-Advooate said : There are several matters upon which I 
desire to bring rebutting- and disproving testimony ; first, on the sub- 
ject of the deficit balances or amounts overstated, on pages 1 ami 2, part 
2d of Exhibit B, upon which Mr. Terry and the Second Comptroller 
have testified, and upon which I cross-examined them. Under the rules 
governing the production of testimony, to discredit and disprove these 
witnesses' statements, I propose to introduce certain testimony to show 
that the testimony of those witnesses for the defense was based on 
insuflflcie-.it data, and that the Auditor's certificate, referred to by 
them as being taken up, were in point of fact considered in the making 
up of this tabular statement. 

Then, as to the question of veracity between the witness Cooke and 
the witness on the stand, I ]>ropose to substantiate the testimony of Mr. 
Moody by first examining him on that point, which, I believe, is always 
allowable. 

The next point is, the statement brought out by the defense as to the 
records having been thrown into the present Freedmen's Branch, Adju- 
tant-General's Ofdce, in " utter confusion and packages broken open." 
Those are the words of the witness, and upon which I cross-examined 
him. I propose to discredit and disprove that statement. The next 
point upon which I propose to examine this witness is as to the state- 
ment of Messrs. Terry and Cooke, who have sworn positively that the 
records were properly lal)eled and complete. I propose to show that 
they were in error in those statements. The next point is in reference to 
the letter-press books, npon the subject of lists sent with checks to py 
claimants. There were some positive statements made on cross-exami 
nation as to what those letter-press books contained by Mr. Balloch and 
Mr. Terry. I think those witnesses were in error. I propose to dis- 
credit and disprove those statements, through this witness, by the pro- 
duction of the books here themselves. 

The Counsel for the accused said : I wish to say, may it please the 
court, that in every instance cited by the judge-advocate the testimony 
was produced before General Howard called in a witness ; that no part 
of it is new matter brought out by the defense. 

The Judge- Advocate said: I suggest that the testimony of the 
witness Cook on the subject of the manner in which the records were 
thrown into the Freedmen's Branch, Adjutant-General's Oflice, was new 
matter. 

In Greenleaf, before cited, first volume, paragraph 461, it is stated : 
"After a witness has been examined in chief, his credit may be im- 



510 

peached iu various modes beside that of exhibiting the improbabilities 
of a story by oross-examinatiou. (1.) By disproving the facts stated by 
him by tlie testimonj" of other witnesses.'' 

I propose to discredit the testimony, not the general character for 
truth and veracity of the witnesses named, on those points. A witness 
may be in error ; it may be shown his memory had failed him ; he may be 
ordinarily a very truthful man ; he may intend to tell the truth, and 
still not have stated the fact as it was. 

The Counsel for the accused said : We wish the court distinctly to 
understand our position. We object to any rebutting testimony, except 
.-•s to new matter brought out by us upon our examination of the wit- 
nesses. 

The President of the court said : I understand the rebuttal must 
be confined to ucav evidence elicited by the opposite party. 

The court was then cleared for delilDeration. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present, 

The Judge-Advocate announced as the decision of the court that 
the objection on behalf of the accused was sustained. 

The court then, at 4 p. m., adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a. m. 



THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, 
Washington, I). C, Friday, May 1, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. 5 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

o. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, U. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate ; also,. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, IJ. S. A., the accused, and Edward W. 
Dyer, esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The Judge-Advocate said : I desire to ask the counsel for the ac- 
cused, through the court, whether it is proposed on the part of the de- 
fense to introduce any evidence on the subject of the disposition of the 
" irregular retained bounty-fund." My recollection is, although it was 
not probably noted on the record, and I may not have heard the conver- 
sation aright, that the president of the court, early in this case, asked 
the accused on that subject, and reply was made substantially that, 
taking lists prepared from the bounty-register here in court as a basis, 
testimony would be introduced. I beg to be informed if I am mistaken. 
If, however, the accused desires to introduce such evidence, so far as it 



511 

lies with me, I am ready to waive any technicality as to the defense 
having closed, in order that such evidence may be presented. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : So far as I understand the ques- 
tion, it is a very kind offer upon the partof the judge-advocate to assist 
us in making out a defense. But I suggest, iu reply, that we have put 
in our testimony iu our own way, and announced yesterday that we 
were through, with the exception of the statement of General Howard. 

John S. Moody, a former witness, was then recalled by the judge- 
advocate, and offered in rebuttal. 

A Member of the Court inquired what the judge-advocate pro- 
posed to prove by the witness. 

The Judge- Advocate said : I propose to show by the witness here, 
Mr. Moody, and by Mr. vSims, chief of division. Second Auditor's Ofdce, 
within call, that tlie sum of $337.33, in the case of Harriet D. Walker, 
widow of Pius D. Walker alias Pius Dominick, has never been turned 
over to Captain James McMillan, chief disbursing ofdcer freedmen's 
branch Adjutant-Geueral's Office, either by General Howard or his late 
disbursing officer, Major Brown. The court declined to summon wit- 
nesses on those complaint cases; but in this particular case the return of 
the money to the Freedmen's Bureau was substantiated by the Bureau 
records. Major Brown was recalled here by order of the court to enable 
him to make a statement, which proved not to be a statement in cor- 
rection as to matters about which he had testified, but new matter not 
elicited on his examination and which would seem to be naturally- pre- 
sentable by the defense toward justification. The court permitted me 
to cross-examine him, and I have now the public records here by which 
I can repeV counteract, and disprove his statement given in evidence 
that he transferred said sum of $337.33 in the $720,84:13.11 turned over 
to Captain McMillan. The point is, I consider, very material, because 
if this one of the 174 complaint cases is substantially proven to be true, 
it will show, conclusively, to the court that there was basis to the alle- 
gation of claimant that she had not received her money, although a 
voucher for the payment to her from General Howard has been proven 
to be filed iu the Treasury, and credit claimed and allowed to him 
thereon. (See 1st Starkie on Evidence, vol. 1, 7th edition, sec. 217.) 

The President of the Court said :I think you may put it on record 
that the court decided long ago that we do not want any more evidence 
on that point. I think we so decided yesterday. 

The Judge-Advocate. This was an offer that I did not present last 
night. 

The President of the Court. We decided a principle which embraced 
that case. If any member of the court wants more testimony I will be 
happy to receive it. But my opinion of the ruling of the court is, that 
we have had enough testimony on that case. 

The Judge- Advocate. It is true, may it please the court, there is 
considerable testimony on that case. But in this instance Major Brown 
came into court, after his direct and cross-examination had been ended, 
on the plea of making a statement that was presumed to be iu correc- 
tion of his testimony, but he went into this matter of Pius D. Walker. 
The court then allowed me to cross-examine upon it, and he made state- 
ments that I am able to disprove, namely, that he did not turn over the 
money which he declares he did turn over to Captain McMillan. That 
is one of these 174 cases. Of course I did not originally bring these 
records in the matter before the court, because I could have no knowl- 
edge of what testimony Major Brown would give. All that 1 had to do 



512 

was to show cliat tlie money bad come back before tbe Bureau was 
discoutiuued. Then it Avould be for tbe defense to show wliere it went ; 
and it would be for me iu rebuttal to show it had not gone where and 
as the defense alleged. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
reopened, the accused and his cousel being present, 

The President of the Court announced the decision of the court, 
that the court had heard testimony enough upon that ]>oiut. 

E. A. Woodward, a witness, was then called by the judge-advocate, 
and offered in rebuttal. 

A Member of the Court inquired for what purpose the witness was 
offered. 

The Judge- Advocate said: I propose now to show by this witness — 

First. That he has been chief clerk in charge of the colored-troops 
branch of the Adjutant-Generars Office since its organization in about 
1803. 

Second. That he has made an examination of the irregular retained- 
bounty register in possession of the court ; and that certain colored 
soldiers Avho are represented on that register to have been "paid" 
had actually been dead long before the date of alleged payment, as 
shown by the official muster-rolls in the Adjutant-General's Office. 

This testimony I iiropose to introduce to counteract and disprove as 
well as to reply to the statement of General Balloch, which was to the effect 
substantially that " the payments were made on proi)er vouchers, and 
that the retained-bounty register gives a full account of payments made 
by him from said fund, with the names of the claimants, amount paid 
each, and date of payment." (See deposition, Exhibit H' ; ^ee Starkie 
on Ev., vol. 1, 7th ed., sees. 211, 212, 213, 21G, 218 and 219.) 

The President of the Court said : You may enter of record, as 
my sense of the judgment of the court, that that matter, if material, 
ought to have been introduced in the first instance. It is not in rebuttal, 
in the true sense of the word, and therefore inadmissible at this time. 

The Judge-Advocate. I think I can show why it was not material 
at that time. 

The President of the Court. Let us have your statement. 

The Judge-Advocate. I had only the affirmative of the issue. I 
showed that a certain sum of money had come into the possession of the 
Bureau on this irregular retained-bounty fund business. I showed that 
uo vouchers had been rendered to the Treasury for it ; that there was 
no setlement ; that what vouchers had been rendered there had been 
taken up, thus putting the onus on the defense, to show what had been 
done about it. 

Afterward ^h\ Balloch came in and says, after I had specifically an- 
nounced the closing of my testimony, that these payments were made 
on proper vouchers, and so forth, and that the bounty-register was cor- 
rect and true in all respects as stated. Upon an examination of the rolls 
and records I find that I can disprove that statement. 

The President of the Court. In whole or in part? 

The Judge-Advocate. In a number of instances. 

The Counsel for the Accused said : That book shows a large 
number of payments to widows and heirs, through Major Coats; and the 
soldiers must have been dead. 

The Judge- Advocate. These that I refer to were not paid through 
Coats. 



513 

The Counsel for the Accused. Mr. Balloch, himself, testified that 
he paid to soldiers or their representatives, in some cases to their heirs. 
We do uot propose to believe that because a raau has been alive he can 
never die. 

The JudGtE-Adtocate. The record does not show in the cases I in- 
tend to oflter that the money was paid to the heirs of the individual, 
but to the individual himself. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being 
re-opened, the accused and his counsel being present. 

The President of the Court announced as its decision that the 
court did not want any more testimony upon that point. 

The Counsel for the Accused said: If it is not impertinent, 1 wish 
to say that we do not like to have the records brought in here to prove 
that they are incomplete and imperfect; and then brought in again to 
prove by their perfection a denial of the same witnesses. 

The Judge- Advocate. The peculiarity in this case is that the wit- 
nesses for the affirmative have been, almost exclusively, the same wit- 
nesses brought by the defendant, and to very nearly the same state of 
facts; and that has made a difficulty, I think, for the affirmative, for the 
reason that if there was anything improper in the alleged transaction, 
the persons concerned were themselves the witnesses, and they would 
naturally be reluctant to testify. 

The President of the Court. If the object of the affirmative be to 
establish the truth, there can be no objection to the witnesses: but if it 
be to convict somebody, then there may be some confusion. Xow go 
on with the next point. 

The Judge-Advocate said : The court will remember that yesterday 
the defense put in a letter from General Howard to the Secretary of War, 
dated February 17, 1874, informing the honorable Secretary that he had 
just learned on that day from General Balloch that an account of A. R. 
Shepherd had probably been twice allowed in the settlement of Bal- 
loch's account. I propose now to show by Major Vincent, here present, 
that, on January 8, 1874, after Mr. Moody had spoken to him of the 
publication in the Baltimore American, he, Vincent, went to the Secre- 
tary of War and called his attention to the fact that the Shepherd 
voucher was identical in amount with the 816,652.25 item for " schools 
and asylums " in the 819,41:6.57 interest account. Further, that the 
Secretary ordered him to investigate and ascertain whether, as stated 
in Balloch's letter, B-, p. 8, Ex. B., part 2d, this sum had been actually 
taken up on the refugees and freedmen's fund and accounted for. 

Further, that, on February 14, the communication from the Secretary 
of War to the Secretary of the Treasury (introduced by the defense in 
Mr. Caldwell's cross-examination) was taken by Major Vincent to the 
Secretary of the Treasury by direction of the Secretary of War, and the 
Third Auditor and Secretary of the Treasury then notified (February 14) 
that the voucher had been a second time presented for credit, and credit 
claimed, thus showing conchmvely that the first intimation the War 
Department had of this erroneous or fraudulent voucher did not come 
from General Howard, the statement of counsel for the accused on April 
15 (27th day's proceedings) to the contrary notwithstanding. (See Bou- 
vier's Law Dictionary, volume 2, under the title of '' Eebutting evidence,'' 
for the rules on which my motions have been made.) 

The President of the Court said : We decided that yesterday. 
The court has enough testimony on that point. 
33 HC 



514 

Witli the permission of tbe court tlie followiug letter was read by 
t lie judge-advocate, and made a part of the record : 

Department of the Interior, 

n^ashington, D. C, February 29, 1872. 
Sir : Referring to our conversation in whicli allusion was made to the desire of this 
Department to s«nd some suitable person to Arizona to co-operate Avith the military 
authorities in preserving peace and inducing the Indians to settle and remain perma- 
nently upon reservations, I have the honor to inform yon that General O. O. Howard 
has consented to accept the ajjpointmeut, on condition that he may be ordered by the 
War Department to go, and that be be permitted to take with him a member of his 
staff, Lieut. M. C. Wilkinson. 

From a conversation I had with the President last evening, on the subject, lam en- 
couraged to hope that the order suggested will be given. 
It is very desirable that General Howard proceed immediately upon the mission. 
I beg, therefore, respectfully to invite your attention to this sul)ject and to express 
the hope that he may receive orders to leave at once, provided there be no reason to 
the contrary. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

C. DELANO, 

Secretary. 
The indorsemeut was read, as follows : 



Order General Howard to report to Secretary of the Interior. 
March 1, 1872. 



W. W. B. 



The Judge Advocate then said : If the court please, I have a letter 
here from Brevet Brigadier-General F. E. Sewall, late of Volunteers, 
who was summoned here as a witness, but as a public ofQcer, in Massa- 
chusetts, of the Government, his services were required there, and I told 
him he could go home, as I knew him very well, and I would present to 
the court anything which he would say in General Howard's behalf. 
General Howard has received a reply, wiiich 1 will read if the court has 
no objection. 

There being no objection the judge-advocate then read the letter, as 
follows : 

Washington, D. C, April 23, 1874. 

Sir : I find that it is imperatively necessary that I should return to my official duties 
in Boston on the 25th instant, and in response to inquiries made by your counsel to-day, 
I have the honor to state that in the winter of 18B7, I think, I was directed by you to 
make a general inspection of alfairs pertaining to conduct of officers of the Freedmeu's 
Bureau in New Orleans, and to report the result of my inspection to you ; that my 
attention was specially called to the matters of the then late agent, Mr. Maudeville. 
I made the examination and reported the result to you in writing. I was assigned to 
duty as acting assistant inspector-general in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lands, in March, 1866, and served as such until the spring and sunmier of 
1869. That duruig that time I mode very frequent inspections of the oftices of the 
assistant commissioners and sub-asaistant commissioners in the Southern States. That 
by your direction I frequently made special inspections and investigations. That it 
was your custom, whenever complaint was made to you from responsible sources, or 
whenever any irregularity came to your knowledge, to order an immediate investiga- 
tion. That you gave your whole attention to your duties, and, in my opinion, exercised 
unwonted diligence and care in the administration of your office. That the duties 
were multifarious. That on two occasions I accompanied you when you made perst)nal 
inspections of Bureau afi'airs through nearly all of the Southern States. Captain Sla- 
den, then and now of your staff, knows how frequently insj)ectious were ordered and. 
made. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

F. D. SEWALL. 

Brig. Gen. O. 0. Howard, U. S. A. 

The Counsel foe the Accused then said : If the court please, I wish 
to say, in regard to the statement that General Howard is now about to 
make, that he does it upon his own resiiousibility. The counsel I gave 



515 

him was to eliminate from it everything but fact. He tells me that he 
has endeavored to do so. I have not read it over, but, knowing how 
people are constituted, it may be that argument will creep into it. 

The President of the Court. Tliat will not debar you from further 
argument. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard then read the following statement : 

statement of the accused. 

Washington, I). C, May 1, 1S74:. 
To the Court of Inquiry : * 

Gentlemen : I will attempt to make a plain statement in answer to 
the charges contained in the communication ot the honorable Secretary 
of War, now the subject of your investigation, which was sent to Con- 
gress of date December 4, 1873. Tlie letter begins iu a business-like 
manner to present the case, doubtless without any preme.litatiou to do 
me a wrong, yet the very commencement 1 deem unjust to the Bureau 
over whicli I had administrative charge. 

1 . — Developments. 

The " certain developments" therein named, page 1, do not appear to 
have arisen of themselves in the ordinary course of business, but seem to 
have been the result of careful and continued search aud special eftbrt on 
the part of certain oilicials of the War Department and clerks. Maj. 
Tliomas M.Vincent's letter to the Secretary of War, of October 7, 1872, (sent 
to Congress,) indicates the character of the strictness made upon the late 
Bureau, so that the expression, " Hence no special search was made 
bearing upon them," (meaning the developments,) is plainly an error on 
his part. 

2, — Corruption. 

The next sentence of accusation, beginning with " complaint after 
complaint," and ending " strong proof was presented that the claim- 
ants had not been paid," gives a picture of accusation which has 
been often transferred to the press of the country, and which on 
one occasion I myself saw presented with embellishments to a Phila- 
delphia audience of some two thousand people as a remarkable 
illustration of the corruption of the times. W^ithout explanation 
the statement carried an inference that was cruelly unjust to me. It 
appears tliat the complaints from colored soldiers are not disproportion- 
ate in number when compared with those from white soldiers, though 
for many plain reasons they might reasonably be expected to be much 
more numerous. Notice in this connection the letter of the Second 
Auditor to the Secretary of War of April, 1872, whicli shows in this 
connection the remarkable aid rendered by the Freedmen's Bureau to 
his ofdce. 

3. — Filing vouchers at Treasury. 

The filing of vouchers and the taking of credit, before the money 
sent has actually reached the claimants, is to my i)ersonal knowledge 
not an unusual proceeding on the part of disbursing officers, and was 
well known to the accounting officers of the Treasury for the whole live 
years of the bounty disbursements of the Freedmen's Bureau.. There 



516 

was a desire ou the part of myself and my chief disbursing oflScers to 
hasten as much as possible the payments of bounties by this method of 
tiilng vouchers. We promi^tly turned over money returned to us from 
subordinate officers, that the vouchers might be canceled or settled as 
justice demanded. Whenever ground for investigation of such cases as 
those named was presented to me the investigation was made, and 
whenever it appeared that fraud had been committed by anybody, I i)ro- 
ceeded at once against t|ie guilty i)arties themselves. 

4. — Apology of Secretary of War. 

The next item in the honorable Secretary's letter is an apology for not 
sooner bringing me to trial, based upon the alleged " incomplete and 
disordered condition of the records of the late Bureau," and the neces- 
sity of collateral examination in the Treasury Department. In answer, 
I respectfully refer to my former answer (page 42 of the charges) to 
the same charge made by Major Vincent, in his letter of October 9, 1872. 
It was not then too late to bring me to trial. This " incompleteness " of 
records would have been entirely remedied by the passage of the bill 
proposed to Congress by the Committee on Freedmen's Affairs, which 
was substantially my recommendation, and was drawn by me just before 
leaving for the West under orders. The passage of the bill as drawn 
was prevented by the letter of the honorable Secretary of War, dated 
May 22, 1872, to the chairman of the Appropriation Committee, recom- 
mending the omission of the section which provided an appropriation 
ifor settling all outstanding claims and for completing the records, and 
provided also that I have charge of the work. 1 desire to state my be- 
lief that my responsibility for such completion of records was relieved 
by this legislative action, and devolved that duty upon the honorable 
Secretary of War in just accordance with the recommendations of his 
letter aboye referred to. 

5. — Statute of limitation. 

To show that J had no desire to avail myself of the limitation of 
statute, I submit the following letter, dated December 17, 1873, addressed 
to the Military Committee of Congress, in answer to tliis letter of the 
honorable Secretary of War, now under consideration : 

Washington, D. C, Decemher 17, 1873. 

Sik: In accordance with the reqnest of yesterday received from your committee, I 
appear to make answer as preliminary to a formal rebutting of the charges in a letter 
of the honorable Secretary of War, dated December 4, 1873, and referred to your com- 
mittee. Permit me to state, first, that I court the fullest possible examination into 
all the subjects therein named. 

Second. Having never been averse to trial by any proper tribunal, civil or military, 
upon official charges with anj' shadow of foundation, I deprecate the statement of my 
accuser that " a general court-martial became barred in i)art under statute of limita- 
tions;" and, if it b ^ legally possible to do so, I wish to waive all rights and privileges 
iaccorded me under such statute, to the end that the " public benefit " may receive no 
jdetrjmeut. 

fhird. In considering the alleged irregularities and violations of law in the conduct 
x>-f the late Freedmen's Bureau, I am confident of my ability clearly to prove that, acting 
as Couimjajsiouer in an administrative capacity, I am neither morally nor legally re- 
sponsible for either of the several counts set forth in the Secretary's letter, and there- 
fore not personally or officially accountable for any portion of the sum which makes up 
the aggregate therein charged ; certainly it is against the usage of every department of 
the Government to hold me pecuniarily accountable for the defalcations of subordinate 
.officers where no collusion whatever is claimed. 

With this brief statement I shall gladly submit to the examination and judgiqent 



517 

of the committee the work of the late Freedmen's Bureau, or such portion of it as may 
be necessary, the mauuer of its perforuiauce, and my own record, official and personal, 
connected with it, with a view to a final, complete settlement of the questions at issue, 
and which have been so annoying to my friends and such a prolific source of public 
scandal. 

Verv respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, U. S. A. 
Hon. John Cob urn, 

Chairman Committee on Military Affairs, House of Eepresentatives. 

I submit also a letter written to the General commanding' the Army, 
(one of similar import having; been written to the Presideiitof the United 
States of the same date,) wliich tends to show that I dei)recated any 
bar to a foil and thorough investigation, and iucidentally gives what I 
believe to be in part the immediate occasion of the formal charges pre- 
ferred against me on the ith of the following December. 

WxVSHiNGTOX, D. C, Xovemher 27, 187.3. 

General : On account of the steady coufideuce you have reposed in me, I write the 
following to you. I am constrained to take a step that I believe I ought to explain to 
you and to the officers of the Army affected by it. I wish to be assigned to Army duty 
wherever it shall seem best to you to select my place of assignment. 

You have twice offered me this opportunity. My reasons for not promptly embracing 
the offer were twofold: First, I was anxious to complete the work of the Freedmen's 
Bureau, to which I had been assigned without any solicitation on my part, but which 
of necessity developed into enormous proportions, and which re(i[uired time properly to 
close; second, I was anxious that the university, which had gro vn up under my eye, 
and which I deemed all-important as a part of the higher educational advantages I 
had been instrumental in securing, especially for those classes of our people whose in- 
terests were for a time so largely committed to my care, should be put upon a secure 
basis in all its breadth of scope before committing its presidency to a successor. 

I hiive endeavored to give it an endowment worthy of the object. Unexpected oppo- 
sition, the usual misrepresentation of the motives of one engaged in such a work, aud 
hinderances of a public and private nature have made this work slow aiul onerous. 
It is not j'et done, but I am unable with my private income to continue it. I had 
intended to ask to be placed before a retiring board, in fact I did so apply to the War 
Department, but I was sent to Arizona and New Mexico very soon thereafter, aud was 
obliged to undertake duty equally arduous with any that I performed during the war; 
on this I withdrew my application. I found mj'self as able to undergo fatigue and 
privation and all the labor that pertains to tield duty as at any previous time of mj- 
life. You will remember also that the loss of my arm never disabled me from the per- 
formance of any duty demanded of me as a general officer. I have, however, often 
thought of retiring, hoping that my hard services during the war, and the much harder 
services required of me since the war, would be considei'ed in my favor. 

But under present circumstances it is not prudent for me to take this step of asking 
to be retired. While many who commanded a division only for a time have been 
retired with the rank of uuijor-general, 1 cannot lawfully btj so retired, because I was 
wounded so early in the war, while a brigadier commanding a brigade, and would, 
therefore, be obliged to retire as a brigadier. 

This might seem to be ample, and would be, doubtless, but for the obligations 1 have 
been forced to incur in the work providentially given me to do. 

1 confess that weightier reasons affect me now than any I have given, to influence 
my return to Army duty. Bulletins affecting me unfavorably have gone broadcast. 
My integrity is officially acknowledged, I admit; and I hold letters of high commen- 
dation; and further, my seven years of unremitting toil, auxiety, and responsibility 
are known, and the good finits are seen by those who care to see and acknowledge 
them. Yet it is idle for me to try and conceal from myself the plain fact that there is 
a persistent effort to tarnish my record ; and if not in official quarters, the result is 
precisely the same. 

All the books and papers of a large Bureau are transferred to other liands ; a 
lengthy examination is there instituted ; and whatever the results of this examination 
may be, from it grows public suspicion and accusati(')n against me aud the honorable 
officers who were associated with me. Now, all this I wish to face. You have seen me 
iu battle and know how I can face death. I shall face accusation with the same fear- 
less spirit. I wi.sh to go to duty, to give all accusers ample time aud opportunity to 
round out their charges, and, if rhey see lit to do so, I wish to be tried by a court-mar- 
tial as the tribunal just suited to one of my history and rank. 



518 

Again, I have another reason for service : Should we now have a war with Spain, to 
free more shives from dire oppression and defend tlie honor of our flag, the President 
wonkl snrely give nie the opportunity of service. I do not wish to he shelved or 
crushed. Is it not a good thing to endeavor to ])reserve and not destroy the fair fame 
of men wlio ardently love their country, and who have, in a series of successful battles, 
demonstrated that this love is no empty boast ? 

By the consideration of past service; by my earnest loyalty to my country ; by ray 
desire to preserve an unsullied record for my children's inspection, I ask for my proper 
place among the oflicers of the Army. 

I am not only conscious of integrity, but of fidelity. My work was of necessity in- 
complete ; but no wrong on the part of any officer or clerk was ever knowingly covered 
up by me, and I was diligent as I could be iu the pursuit of wrong-doers. I shrink 
from no danqer, or trial, or duty ; but I depi-ecate insinuation and suspicion. 

On public and personal grounds, I ask your aid to restore me to the post of service 
and confidence that I know you believe belong to me. 
Very respectfullj', vours, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General United States Army. 

General W. T. Siiekman, 

Commanding Army of the United States. 

6. — Charges. 

The next paragrapli, (i)age 2 of charges, beginuiug "Department of 
Justice,") exi>laius the steps taken in referring the cases of complaint 
from bounty claimants to the Department of Justice for recovery. It 
appears to me that, in this charge, a judgment is already formed against 
the ofiicers and agents of the late Bureau. They are injured by this 
public announcement. Quite a different course is pursued by the Gov- 
ernment Avhere white soldiers have failed to receive their bounty from 
paymasters of the Army. 

7. Character of information. 

The next statement of the Secretary of War that I was " promptly 
informed of missing records" is true, but the next, that I had been 
promptly informed of the apparent exhibits against me, is an important 
error. Before Major Vincent's letter of October 7, 1872, was brought 
out, I was corresponded with quite fully upon the subjects therein con- 
tained, but was not shown the charges themselves till they api)eared in 
the letter to Congress, or rather till they appeared in the New York 
Tribune two days in advance of the letter to Congress. Before the is- 
suance of these charges, T could not even surmise their nature. After 
the letter of the Attorney-General, dated May 31, 1873, (see page 3, Sec- 
retary's charges,) was published in the newspapers, I sent a telegram 
from Poughkeepsie, N. Y., where I was at the time, to the honorable 
Secretary of War, asking, in substance, for a full statement of all the 
charges aginst me, and the amounts of money for which I was held ac- 
countable, together with the names of the subordinates through whom 
this accountability was charged to me. In reply, (see Major Vincent's 
letter dated July 14, 1873,) I was told that "in due time" I should be 
informed ; but I was not furnished with information in any other way 
than what I could learn by way of inference from a continuous and 
formal correspondence which bore the impress of suspicion and com- 
plaint, and not only afforded no clear and specific statement of the na- 
ture and extent of the accusations — whether they were against the Com- 
missioner himself or against his subordinates; but, on the contrary, con- 
stantly demanded other missing links of information not otherwise at- 
tainable, which seem to have been regarded necessary iu order to the 
completion of charges subsequently made against me. In fact, I in- 



519 

ferred iu tlie outset from the followiug letter of the Secretary of ^Yar, 
written after 1 had spoken to him of the poisonous breath of newspaper 
scandal fostered by the uuendiug Bureau discussions of official charac- 
ter, (the seutimeuts of which letter have frequently beeu privately re- 
iterated by him since the charges were sent to Congress,) that I was not 
myself under suspicion of wrong-doing: 

War Department, 

TTashivgion City, June 29, li<7'2. 

Dear General: The act of Congress places the Freedmen's Bureau in charge of 
the V^'ar Depftrtmeut, and General Order No. 55 has beeu Issued, carrying the law into 
eifect. In making this change required by the \a\\, it gives me pleasure to bear wit- 
ness to the zeal, energy, and integrity which have, iu my opinion, characterized your 
management of the Bureau. 

On the field, when I was your subordinate iu the Army of the Tennessee, I observed 
the gallantry and ability which marked your conduct from the day of the battle of 
Ezra Church until the end. Since I have been here I have had occasion at times to 
express my opinion as to your administration of the Bureau, and I do not hesitate to 
say that, in my judgment, its aftairs have been conducted l)y you with honor and 
integrity that cannot be questioned. It gives me pleasure to say this without solicita- 
tion from yourself or your friends. 

I am, general, very truly yours, 

WM. W. BELKXAP. 

Gen. O. 0. Howard, United States Army. « 

8. — Irregu la r trus t-fu nd. 

jSTow we come to the first specific charge, that of $121,000 not ac- 
counted for, (page 2, heading 7.) Being named first out of its order, with 
unfavorable comments, I will consider it first. The amount of this fnnd 
(according to the accounts I have) is overstated in the charge by $1,378.81. 
The charge refers to the retained bounty or irregular State-bounty fund. 
The following expression, viz, " In one item stated at upward of 
8121,000 not accounted for, it will be seen that accounts cannot be pro- 
duced, and no attempt has been made to prove what has become ot the 
money," presents a charge which I deny. The truth is, that accounts 
have been produced, and no efforts could have been more active and 
more persistent than mine to show what has become of the money. 
After my return from Arizona, and the completion of my reports of 
work among the Indians, I set myself immediately to settle up my late 
Bureau matters as best I could. 

On January 8, 1873, being reminded by my aid-decamp. Captain 
Sladen, that i had not closed this fund, and one other, I wrote a letter 
to Major Vincent, under date January 8, 1873, explaining the delay, 
and stating that I had deposited the unexpended balance of the fund, 
with a list of those claimants not yet paid, in the Treasury of the United 
States. Soon after I was ordered by communication from the War 
Department, dated January 21, 1873, to take the money from the Treas- 
ury and turn it over to Captain McMilhin, the disbursing officer of the 
Secretary of War, as it was decided that the Secretary of War succeed- 
ed me in the care of this fund. I did not so interpret the law, but I 
obeyed the order, and turned over the money ($1,628.59) as directed. 
There were, therefore, when the charges were made, already in the 
hands of the War Department officials, first, this money (-31,028.59,) 
with a specific list of the men not yet paid ; second, the two cash-books 
that have been brought into court; third, the large bounty register 
marked '^retained bounty," which gives the name, regiment, and com]>any 
of each soldier, the date of muster, the date of payment, and through whom 
paid, with other information necessary to identification or test of payment ; 



520 

and, fonrtb, the "lefters-sent" and "letters-received" books of Major 
Coats, whicb he affirms contain tlie evidence of the receipt and acknowl- 
edgment of General Balloch's checks in payment. It is true, that the 
receipts or vouchers which were first delivered b}' General Balloch to the 
Third Auditor, and ordered to be withdrawn because not pertaining- to 
United States funds, and afterward deposited with the Second Auditor 
with like result, have been lost; how, I cannot explain. 1 think they 
were thrown into the masses of waste paper delivered to the pai)er- 
niakers, either during or just after the removal of the records from the 
old office to the new. It is the only reasonable explanation of the loss. 
7 could have had no possible object in destroying them, and believed 
them as safe as other vouchers till I called for all books and ])apers for 
examination, that I might intelligently account to the Treasury for the 
unexpended balance. No payments from this fund were made by me as 
disbursing officer, nor by Major Brown, my successor, and General Bal- 
loch always said that he left the vouchers in his office at the Bureau, 
where he was relieved, and has not se^^n them since. It appears to me, 
he could hope to gain nothing by their disappearance. As soon as I 
found search for them in every direction to be unsuccessful, I began to 
probe the matter of payment. The different respectable firms and at- 
torneys named in the records were applied to, and furnished with cop- 
ies of the lists of names; comparisons were carefully made, and the at- 
torneys have made affidavits to the fact of receiving the money upon 
proper powers of attorney, and of having paid the claimants which by 
the books purported to have been paid by them. There were but 21 
names of claimants whose claims w^ere not thus covered by i)ositive affi- 
davits, and General Balloch's last sworn statement and account-current 
cover the remaining 21. The final statement of General Balloch I did 
not get into my possession until after these charges had been published. 
Some few of the minor items of account had not been furnished me pre- 
viously with proper vouchers, and when I did receive the com- 
plete statement, with explanations, believing, as I did, and still do, 
that my proper accountability is primarily to the claimants themselves, 
and to the Treasury for unexpended balance, I have not thought it 
safe to forward the original accounts to the Secretary of War. Now, 
the decision of the Second Comptroller, and the instructions of the 
Secretary of the Treasury, render my course very jilain ; it is, to carry 
the account to the Second Auditor, satisfy him as to what the real 
balance is, and account to him for my disposition of it. I will say that 
I visited Mr. Duren, General Balloch's book-keeper, accompanied by 
Captain Sladen, and tested General Balloch's statement concerning an 
error in the taking up of Captain James's (the disbursing officer in North 
Carolina) rolls. Mr. Duren said that General Balloch pointed out to 
him the mistake soon after it occurred, and that what he said to me was 
just as he (Duren) understood it. Not one of the claimants marked 
paid has ever applied to me for his pay, and I am assured that but one 
has indirectly inquired at the War Department, and that his case can- 
not now be produced. 

In conclusion, I wish to say that I believe the fund has been fiiithfully 
disbursed ; that there are now enough books, papers, and vouchers to 
account satisfactorily, to any court or other tribunal not unfriendly, for 
the entire fund, including the interest, and premium, and unexpended 
balance. 

Letter to the Second Auditor from General Howard, dated April 28, 
1874, subsequently given in this statement. 



521 

9. — M isappUeation of fa nds. 

The next paragraph of the letter of the Secretary of War under 
consideration (pp. 2 and 3, heading 8) touches upon " misapplication of 
funds," claiming that " these irregularities and violations of law have 
had much to do with the confusion of records, their defective condition, 
and the almost entire suspension of work,-' &c. 

The inference is not correct. It will be remembered that the several 
items of appropriation are not construed to mean several appropriations, 
there being really but one. When a disbursing ofticcr overdraws one 
item, and underdraws another item, there is no misai)plication, or viola- 
tion of law; and there has not been, to my knowledge, a single illegal 
expenditure — no expenditure of any kind not contemplated in the total 
appropriation — not even an overdrawing in any items of the appropri- 
ation. It should not be forgotten that the deficiency appropriation of 
1872 set apart $40,000 for schools and asylums, and this implies a fair 
proportion of clerks and messengers to expend it. The South Carolina 
school-fund, the school-fund proper, and Freedmen's fund, were not en- 
tirely exhausted in the spring of 1872, and were available for school 
purposes under the law; so that there was no misapplication of funds 
in this direction of schools. 

For the want of funds, occasioned by a re- appropriation by Congress 
of money already devoted, and promised by me as Commissioner to 
schools to the extent of $37,500, and a cutting down of $20,000 of my 
school estimate, I was obliged to cut oft 20 per cent, of the amounts 
which several worthy institutions were depending upon. It was hard 
to do this, yet it was done to avoid any, even constructive, misapplica- 
tion of funds. The remainder of the $109,363.17, not under the item 
" misapplication," purports to have been paid by overdrawing the 
Treasury account, or to be drawn from bounty-money and afterward 
re imbursed from the deficiency, and the regular appropriations of 1872. 
If it were so, the disbursing officer took his own risk without consult- 
ing me, gave his own .security, and made the re-imbursement. When 
appropriations are unexpectedly and unaccountably delayed in Con* 
gress, it is sometimes a question as to what is right — whether to dis- 
charge your force and stop necessary work, permit the employes and 
their families to sufter, or endeavor to raise funds for temporary use till 
the difficultj^ is removed. 

This the disbursing officer seems to have done, taking the entire re- 
sponsibility upon himself. In this connection there is another alleged 
violation of law made out in the papers connected with this charge 8, 
viz : a violation of the law of July 12, 1870, paying accounts in the 
wrong year by the disbursing officer. 

The answer is, that the explanation of the necessity under which he 
made these payments was satisfactory to the accounting officers of the 
Treasury, and the accounts were by them allowed. The ensuing clause 
in the charge in order states: "The responsibility and accountability 
attaching to the late Commissioner, so far as now developed, amounts to 
upward of $278,573.66." The responsibility attaching to me as Com- 
missioner, I have ever regarded as, first, administrative only, until I ac- 
tually commenced to disburse money ; then it became that of a disburs- 
ing ojfieer. As to the first, I have given to my work all my faculties, 
and claim unreservedly to have always exercised due diligence in the 
performance of the duty devolved upon me. As to the seeond, the dis- 
bursing responsibility, when I began to disburse money, though not so 
required by the law of March 29, 1867, 1 gave bonds to the Government 



522 

for the faithful fulfillmeut of the trust, aud the accounts occurring dur- 
iug the ])eriod of my own disbursement have been settled and closed ; 
see the letter of the Second and Third Auditors, dated respectively 
January 8 and January 7, 1874. 

The accountability cannot, then, 1 think, be shown to be $278,573.66, 
nor any part of that sum, unless it can be shown that some law puts 
the accountability technically upon me. 1 never construed even the 
joint resolution of March 29, 1867. It was not so intended by those 
who framed the original bill; it was never so interpreted to me by the 
Second Comptroller. Whatever be the technical ruling-, it will be neces- 
sary to subtract the 8121,000 faithfully disbursed, plus the $109,363.17, 
which is not even claimed to be lost to the Treasury. This subtraction 
reduces my alleged accountability to $18,210.49. 

10. — Complaints of nonpayment. 

This review^ of the Secretary's letter brings me to heading 1, viz : 
'^(Jlaiuied by colored claimants," w^ho allege that they have not been 
paid their pay aud bounty, although the records of the Treasury Dei>art- 
meut show settlement of the claims, and vouchers have been filed by 
the late Bureau as evidence of payment, $33,888.39. Of this amount 
there are but seven cases that belong to my own period of disbursement. 
I have the most positive evidence that 1 sent the money for the payment 
of these claimants, and if in any case the money had come back to the 
Bureau I should at once have been informed, and turned it over to my 
successor, with full explanation. Maj. J.M. Brown had two cases, which 
be assuuies and explains, and the rest of the cases, making up the 
$33,888.39, General Balloch w^as to pay. He has sworn to the fact that 
be sent the money in good faith for every one of them. 

11. — Mandeville deficit. 

Ten cases of St. Clair Mandeville are embraced in the amount. This 
fact will cover in the neighborhood of $2,000, an amount which is neces- 
sarily twice charged. Again, it is very probable that the United States 
court will recover against the bondsmen of Mandeville the whole 
$8,503.29. The bond, $10,000, running to me in my capacity as Com- 
missioner of a Bureau of tlie United States, does not give the money to 
me. I do not claim it. The United States district attorney is prose- 
cuting the suit for and in behalf of the United States. Should the 
Government fail in this suit, it will be because it cannot be proven that 
St. Clair Mandeville was a defaulter at all, nor liable. Surely I cannot, 
then, be held accountable. 

12.— 0. 0. French deficit. 

The case of O. C. French is still stronger, (see the 3d heading.) The 
bond runs directly to the United States. Upward of $5,000, as in 
evidence, has been already recovered or secured, and my successors, 
through the Department of Justice, are pushing the suit against O. C. 
French. The Government can hardly fail to get the remainder. 

For me the case stands in this way : Maj. O. C. French was a volun- 
teer of good record, recommended in unqualified terms by General Gil- 
lem, the assistant commissioner for Mississippi. 1 required a bond of 
$10,000, which he gave to the United States. His appointment was 
given by direction of the Secretary of War. In my absence on other 



523 

duty, General Whittlesey, actiug for me, reports FreucU's deticit to the 
Secretary of War. He directs Geueral Whittlesey to proceed against 
liini. This is done by a formal report and suit. The new freedmen's 
branch continues the suit, but charges me with any balance not recov^ered. 
Precisely the same reasoning that would hold me accountable will hold 
the Secretary of War accountable, as my successor under the law closing 
the Bureau, for not completing the recovery of the money, the whole 
case, bond and all, having been received and prosecuted by him, O. C. 
French, and not myself or the Secretary of War, and his bondsmen, are 
accountable for this money. 

13. — Runlde deficit. 

The fourth heading need not be mentioned, for the money was stopped 
against the pay of Maj. B. P. Runkle, and the Secretary of War can 
order it turned over to Major McMillan, his disbursing officer, if he so 
desires. 1 have no responsibility here. The next heading, (5,) acknowl- 
edged by Geo. W. Balloch to have been paid by B. P. Runkle " to re-im- 
burse the latter for mistakes made by his agents in paying bounties to 
the wrong parties, $1,331." The $1,331. appears now to have been a 
private loan of General Balloch. As I did not indorse Major Eunkle's 
note, I am surely not accountable for the money. I never had any knowl- 
edge whatever of the transaction. 

14. — Appointment of Major RunMe. 

With reference to the appointment of Maj. B. P. Runkle, T had the best 
kind of recommendation of him by several prominent men, such as Hon. 
William Lawrence, member of Congress, and General Robert C. Schenck, 
United States minister to England. His service-record was excellent- 
He was an officer of the Army, and maintained a continuous good repu- 
tation at Memphis, Tenn., in South Carolina, and for some time in Ken- 
tucky. There were complaints against hira, as against almost any man 
who went South in the Freedmen's Bureau. I did not neglect to inves- 
tigate any valid complaints, nor to report the facts as I found them. 
The courr-raartial fined Major Runkle $7,000. This amount would, I be- 
lieve, more than satisfy the Kentucky proportion of the 171 cases for 
which he was held accountable. Upon what hypothesis could this fine 
be remitted, and afterward the deficiency by this means continued be 
placed upon me ? 

15. — Partial summary. 

It is plain to me that these several amounts, the $33,388.39, con- 
fessedly overstated by ten cases made up of complaints, many of them 
very informal, and for all of which my disbursing officers and myself 
sent the money for payment in full and in good faith, should be deduct- 
ed from my alleged accountability, also the $8,503.89 now overstated, 
both being in process of settlement by a court of law ; also the $673.24, 
already paid, and the $1,331.03, a personal loan of General Balloch to 
Major Runkle, making in all a sum of $48,210.44. This cancels the en- 
tire amount formally charged against me. • 

IG. — Bond-investment and interest. 

But there remains heading 6th : " Due by the late Bureau, in conse- 
quence of illegal, double payments and certain accrued interest, sev- 



524 

eral tlioasaiul dollars." The interest here referred to has all been taken 
up under the "refugees and freedmen's fund," according to the act of 
June 15, 18G6. I will explain mj' own process of reasoning during my 
administration with reference to the interest of the trust-funds the offi- 
cers of the Bureau had in charge : that in the absence of specific statute 
I should have felt obliged to give the entire increase to those claimants 
for whose benefit I held the trust. But this specific act just mimed di- 
rected me to take up all moneys, derived from any miscellaneous source 
whatever, raised for the benefit of refugees and freedmen to the account 
of the fund established by law. This I regarded better than to cover it 
into the Treasury, for which there could be no valid excuse. The ac- 
counting ofiQcers of the Treasury agreed with me in this interpretation 
of the statute. So did General Belknap, the Secretary of War, October 
13, 1871, exi)ressing his entire satisfaction to me in a personal inter- 
view, which I took the pains to note and record. (See order and mem- 
oranda,) 

[Extract from S. 0. No. 151, Freedmen's Bureau, October 13, 1871. J 

* * * ' lu accordance with act of Congress providing for the settlement of 
accounts of certain public officers, approved January 15, 1866, General 'Geo. W. Eal- 
loch, late disbursing officer, is hereby authorized to take up all moneys in excess of the 
cost of the United States securities, as provided for in said acts, and to account for the 
same to the Treasury of the United States. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., U. S. A., Commissioner. 

[luilorsements ou tbe above.] 

Submitted to chief clerk of Treasury, who commended the order and the manner of 
using the funds referred to. O. 0. Howard, Commissioner, &c., October 14, 1871, Wash- 
ington, D. C. 

Also, to Secretary of War, who expressed his satisfaction. 0. O. Howard, Commis- 
sioner, &c., October 14, 1871, Washington, D. C. 

Also, to the Second Comptroller, who pronounced it correct, and to the cashier of the 
Treasury, who advised me to settle past accounts at my oftice, as fiir as funds arc con- 
cerued, and deposit the balance in the Treasury. 0. 0. Howard, Commissioner, &c., 
October 15. 

A little more than a month later, by a letter dated December 6, 1871, 
(see reference to it, page 9 of Exhibit B,) the Secretary having changed 
his mind, ordered me to pay the interest into the Treasury as a " mis- 
cellaneous receipt." It was then impossible to obey the later order lit- 
erally, for the money had been already placed beyond recall, and my 
action was in precise accordance with " order.^ law, and authority.'''' In 
all my correspondence, before the charges were made with the Secre- 
retary of War, with reference to interest ou the bonds, I had in mind 
the last investment, and believed that every dollar of it had been sat- 
isfactorily accounted for. I simply deposited what came into my hands, 
and forwarded General Balloch's account, which explained itself, being 
a very short account, the main expenditure of which w^as repayment of 
the cases of bounty paid by error to the wrong parties. General Balloch 
seems to have supposed that by rendering this account to me he had 
done all that was necessary, and the same was true with the other 
amount of $19,440.57. When we were sent to the Second Com|)troller, 
by a letter from the Secretary of War, to explain the large discrepancies of 
statement in part second of the charges of the Secretary of War, I spoke 
to the Second Comptroller respecting this interest-account, and asked 
him to order General Balloch to render it somewhere. He said, " I can- 
not order it, but I advise him to render it." The next day, or very soon 



5-25 

after tliis, General Ballocb took tlie 810,446.57 account to the Third 
Auditor, and had it settled. On the call of the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury he has now taken the account-current, abstract, and vouchers of the 
other iuterest-account, viz, $2,222.27 to the same Auditor. The delays 
in the final settlement of these accounts are not in au^^ way the result 
of any design to do wrong or conceal anything on my part. I shall get 
them finally disposed of just as quickly as lean. My late officers and 
clerks are almost all engaged in other business, so that I can command 
but a small portion of their time. 

17. — ilfr. Stanto'ii's decision. 

I believe I have answered everything that occurs iu the Secretary's 
letter, so i^,Y as statement of the facts is concerned. The exposition of 
and answer to the points of law involved, and a review of the testimony, 
I leave to my attorney. I did not give the $50,000, bond mentioned in 
the Bureau act of 1865, because 1 believed, and Mr, Stanton, the Secre- 
tary of War, when I was appointed, decided that the law did not re- 
quire it of an Army officer detailed. 

IS. The large discrepancies in Treasury statements are fully explained 
in the letter of General Balloch, dated December 29, 1873; the letter 
of Mr. S. A. Terry, money clerk, dated December 26, 1873; the report 
of the commission appointed by me, consisting of my two aids-de- 
camp, and the letter and indorsement of Hon. J. M. Brodhead, Second 
Comptroller. 

18. — Additional on the large discrepancy. 

I visited the Attorney-General of the United States during the month 
of January, after the letter of the Secretary of War of January 5, 1871, 
(part 2,) had been received in Congress, and published to the country, 
with reference to the bounty cases referred to his Department for prose- 
cution. He told me that the large discrepancy of statement of General 
Balloch in this letter of the Secretary of War had been referred to 
him. I understood him to say there was nothing in the subject that he 
could act upon or prosecute, for if he (Balloch) had settled his accounts 
at the Treasury as required by law, it was all that could be done. 

19. — The duplicated account. 

One subject, though coming to notice after the ordering of this court, 
deserves special remark from me, and that is the $16,652.57 voucher. 
This voucher rendered in support of the regular appropriation account, 
dated March 24, 1871, put into the Treasury at the close of that month 
of March, is really the error or the fraud, for the other, the duplicate, is 
true and right intrinsically in every respect. That first one named was 
put in with a large abstract, and escaped my notice and recollection al- 
together. The latter, which is correct, 1 remember to have seen with 
the other vouchers as late as January and February, 1872, just before I 
went to Arizona. I thought the account had not gone into the Treasury, 
and so approved the vouchers when the interest account was rendered, 
but just as soon as I had an intimation from General Balloch that he 
had discovered the error I wrote to the Secretary of War, (see my letter 
to him, dated February 17, 1874.) I believe now that I ought to have 
asked that the March 24 voucher be cancelled, instead of the other, for 



526 

that (late was certainly wrong, put in so by a clerk, either by intention 
or by accident. I am having this matter very tboroughly looked into, 
and believe we shall be able to bring the guilty parties, it' there are snch, 
to justice. I cannot accuse niyself of even a slight neglect in this mat- 
ter, for I never signed an abstract without giving all the attention to 
it other pressing duties would allow. I coald not give that personal 
inspection to each vouclier tliat an auditing clerk can do, and was obliged 
to rely very much upon certain contideniial clerks that I trusted, such 
as Mr. Terry, Mr. Drew, Mr. Cook, and Mr. Blue, who have testified in 
this case. 

20. — Statements ivith the charges — Saint Clair Mandeville. 

I will now extend my statement to such portions of the documents 
accompanying the charges of the Secretary of War as^may seem to re- 
quire explanation. 

Fage 8. Remark under Samt Clair Mandeville heading. "A letter from 
the Secretary of War to the late Commissioner, dated March 10, 1873, 
in regard to this defalcation, has not been replied to. That letter called 
for a full report, with a list of the defrauded claimants, and invited at- 
tention to the fact that no papers showing the details of tbe matter had 
been transferred to the Adjutant-General of the Army." The letter was 
subsequently replied to as completely as tbe case admitted of, just as soon 
as a leport in the case could be made. Many ])apers are still beld by 
the Kew Orleans United States court. My aid. Captain Sladen, im- 
mediately following the receipt of tbe letter referred to, by my direc- 
tion, drew from tbe books of the freedmen's branch data of all the reports 
and correspondence. The subsequent discovery of the Mandeville 
records and examination by Mr. J. S. Moody, clerk of the freedmen's 
branch, show the fact that papers showing the details of the matter 
icere transferred to the Adjutant-General of tbe Army. 

These records were delayed en route, being detained quite a length 
of time at the freight depot of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in this 
city. I informed Major Vincent as soon as I received notice of tbe 
fact. 

21. — Page d, uwder the second heading, " remarks," we have: ''The 
late Bureau has not complied with that order" — meaning an order of 
the Secretary of the Treasury concerning General Balloch's accounts. 
This assertion is answered by a denial, so far as I myself am concerned. 
I have obeyed every order of the Secretary of tbe Treasury as promptly 
as I could with the clerical help at my command, and now the reports 
of my subordinates and myself have covered tbe entire requirements 
of the order in question. 

22. — Reliability of Record. 

Page 11, Major Vincenfs letter, this sentence is used: "The iuves- 
tigation, however, has disclosed the fact that tbe records referred to 
are incorrect, and therefore not reliable." These words give a sweeping 
charge, which my own inspections and tests do not justify. I have 
disco^•ered at times some errors, and reported them', or had them recti- 
fied, but a close scrutiny shows the '• cash-books" and other records now 
in fair condition and true ; not, perhaps, quite completed, owing to sud- 
den closing of the Bureau and transfer to new bands and tbe discbarge 
of clerks, but certainly bearing, to my knowledge, no intentional wrong- 
entry. 



527 

23. — Failure of afppropriation and re-appropriation. 

Page 13. " This coudition of affairs did not result, as stated by the 
late Couiniissioner iu his letter above referred to, 'by failure of appro- 
priation,' but, on the contrary, from a misapplication, in part, of ample 
appropriations made by Congress for the conduct of the work in ques- 
tion.'' Permit me to state that $50,000 of my Bureau appro])riation 
was by law transferred to the Agricultural Bureau ; that $37,500 w^as 
re-appropriated from my fund to Lincoln University, Pennsylvania, 
and to Wilberforce University, Ohio ; that my estimates, for fulfillment 
of promises conditionally made were cut down 820,000 ; that 8100,000 
was cut oft from my estimate for 1871, without a corresponding dimi- 
nution of duties and requirements of law ; that finally my last estimate 
for 875,000 to pay all outstanding legal claims and for putting the records 
in order, was stricken from the bill for closing the Bureau. Further, 
an unanticipated decision of the Court of Claims took from my ap- 
propriation $10,000 to pay retained ofHcers certain allowances in excess 
of the amount of their salary, already paid. The total amount which 
I had good reason to have expected for Bureau use, but reallj' taken 
from it, was $292,500. Had one-third part of this sum remained, as I 
exi)ected, or been granted by appropriations, as estimated, none of 
the disabilities named by Major Vincent, at the top of page 13, would 
have existed. These facts show plainly that I did not make a " mis- 
statement," as here charged. On page 54, Major Vincent's second re- 
port, sent to Congress February 18, 1873f notice the following : " Under 
General Orders No.. 55 of 1872, from the War Department, that fund — 
the "retained-bounty fund" — should have been transferred or accounted 
for to the Adjutant-General's Ofiice." My difficulty here was to deter- 
mine how to act according to the provisions of the law, which I construed 
as requiring me to account to the Treasury for the unexpended balance, 
and, at the same time, according to General Orders of the War Depart- 
ment, which I do not believe applied to this specified fund. 

I had no intention of disobeying the General Orders ISTo. 55 of 1872, 
and do not think I have done so. The final decision of the Secretary of 
the Treasury relieves from this charge and directs my accountability. 
The letter is as follows : 

24. — Final disposition of irregular-fund account. 

Treasury Department, 

Washimjion, D. C, A2ml26, 1874. 
SjvC: Iu re])ly to yours of the 14tli iustaut, the Secoud Auditor is suogested as the 
proper Auditor to whoui you should render your accounts of the irregular fund, under 
the act of March 2, 1867. 

I have the honor to he, sir, very respectfully, your ohedieut servant, 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretart/. 

This is the first time any of the Treasury officials have ever apprised 
me of the place where I should render an account pertaining to this fund. 
The following letter indicates what will be the final direction of this ac- 
count : 

Washington, D. C, Ajiril 28, 1874. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit uiy accounts of the unexpended halance of the 
irregular fund, according to the act of March 2, 1867. 

I send, also, accompanying papers to enable you to have an intelligent understanding 
of the origin and true amount of said unexpended balance, viz : 

1. The account-current of General Balloch. 

2. Sworn statement of explanation. 



528 

'3. Rolls of soldiers, with attorneys' affidavits. 

4. Letters of correspoudence with the Treasury and War Departmeuts. 
o. Prior explanation of General Balloch, with vouchers. 
6. My letter to the Secretary of the Treasury and his reply. 

For reference, I would name a large bounty-record book of this " irregular fund," now 
in possession of the court of inquiry in my case, and also two large cash-books contain- 
ing a short account of receipts and expenditures when the fund first came into the 
disbursing officer's possession. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier General, United States Army. 
Hon. E. B. French, 

Second Auditor, United States Treasury. 

I am coiifldent of a complete and final settlement of this acconnt as 
soon as the Second Auditor can give attention to it. 

My object has been rather to supplement in this statement the testi- 
mony taken before the court than to give a fall account of the trans- 
actions involved in this inquiry. I am, however, conscious of incom- 
j)leteness because of the great number of items contained in the charges 
of the Hon. Secretary of War, and shall be glad to answer frankly 
and fully any questions the court may be pleased to put. 

The judge-advocate, near the commencement of the investigation, 
referred to my numerous counsel. Of the four gentlemen named, only 
one has served continuously. My desire was merely to provide against 
being left without counsel at any time by reason of the preengagements 
of the gentleuien who were to assist me. This court of inquiry is about 
to pass upon that which is dearer than life to me, to my family and 
friends, my reputation, and my honor as a man and a soldier. 

Permit me, in closing, to express my great satisfaction to the fairness 
and thoroughness of your patient inquiry, and my unspeaUable relief 
in the feeling that whatever your feelings may be, the burden of anxious 
suspense is about to be removed by the substitution of facts in the place 
of suspicion and accusation. 

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, very respectfully, your obedient 
servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier General United States Army. 

Upon motion of a member of the court, it was then 
Ordered, That when this court adjourns it shall adjourn to meet again 
Tuesday next, May 5, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m., to allow time to the 
counsel for the accused to prepare his argument in defense, and that his 
argument be heard at that time; that the court shall thereupon adjourn 
to Thursday following. May 7, 1871, at 11 o'clock a. m., to allow the 
judge advocate time to prepare his argument for the aflirmative, which 
shall then be heard. 

The court was thereupon cleared for deliberation. 
Upon the doors being re opened, the court, at 3 o'clock and 30 minutes, 
adjourned. 



529 



THIRTY-I^INTH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 181G F Street, 

W((sJiiii(/to)i, I). C, Tiiesdai/, May 5, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Present. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Geo. W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A, ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, IJ. S. A. ; 

7. Col. K A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, \]. S. A. ; 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, Judge-Advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate ; 
also, 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and Geo. W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Fridaj', May 1, 1874, were read 
and approved. 

George W. Dyer, Esq., of counsel for the accused, then said: 

May it please the court, before proceeding to the argument proper I 
wish to say that in consequence of the delay iu printing the proceedings 
of the court, and the exhibits, there may be some errors of fact in the 
argument which I am about to mtUve. And also that, by reason of the 
engagements of Mr. Ketchum, I have been unable to confer with him 
about the manner of the matter of the argument. 

And now, with your permission, I will make it as it has been pre- 
pared, under such circumstances. 

ARGU3IENT FOR THE ACCUSED. 

The counsel for the accused then proceeded with his argument as fol- 
lows : 

May it please the court: 

It is a part of the history of the country, known to all men, that on 
the 3d day of March, 1805, when the BureaiU of Refugees, Freedmeu 
and Abandoned Lands was established by law, the accused. General 
Oliver O, Howard, having an important command in General Sherman's 
army, was on his march through a hostile country, from Savannah 
toward Richmond. 

It is also a matter of history that it was then the belief of nearly 
every thinking and observant man of the l^orth that the war of the 
rebellion was near its end, and about to result in the destruction of the 
confedeiacy. 

It was well understood that in the progress of the war great por- 
tions of territory had been occupied by b^ederal troops, in which there 
lived already a great number of black people, and to which other great 
numbers of negroes and numerous wliites had lied as to a refuge, and 
from which the former owners, both of negroes and lands, were fugitives. 

To deal with these freedmeu, lately slaves, with the white refugees, 
and witli the lauds abandoned by their former owners, was a matter 
34 HC 



530 

Avliieli tlie necessities aud fortunes of war imposed upon the National 
Government. 

A wider political sagacity forecast tlie time of the actual ending of 
the war, and by this law made in advance some sort of preparations for 
the care and guidance of the entire colored population of tlie South. 

A quotation from a communication of the War Department to Con- 
gress, just before the passage of the law creating the Freedmen's Bureau, 
gives in glowing language a partial description of the Mork to be done: 

"The work laid out for the Bureau of Emancipation is of immense 
magnitude. Two and a half millions of wards, driven from their accus- 
tomed shelter by the sharp catastroidies of war, landless, houseless, 
homeless, appeal to the Government to guard and save them. From 
their earliest years deprived of the light of knowledge, they are children 
able as yet to see only the star of Ireedom. They feel with hope aud 
conHdence that the flag which brings to them liberty will spread over 
them the mantle of its protection. The instincts of natural honor will 
allow no faltering, aud no failure in our duty to the oppressed freed- 
men, who stand shoulder to shoulder in this struggle for our country's 
safety and renown." 

Alter the passage of this law, of March 3, 1865, the immediate suc- 
cession of stirring events, the movements of armies, the battles, the con- 
quests, tlie peace, the assassination of the President, left no time for 
other matters, and it was two months before any movement was made 
to put the Freedmen's Bureau in operatiou. 

The accused. General Howard, came in advance of his command to 
Washington about the 1st of JMay, 1805, and on the 12tli day of that 
month was detailed by the President to take charge of the Bureau, 

The preceding statements are matters of history ; those which follow 
are based upon the evidence before this court. 

At this point it is proper to state one of the peculiarities of this act 
of March 3, 1805, as ujiou it was based all subsequent legislatiou whi(!h 
derived from it a certain coloring common to all of them. 

This act, among other things, gave to the Commissioner " the coutrol 
of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmeu from rebel States, 
under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of 
the Bureau aud approved by the President." 

That which distinguishes this law is a grant of power to a Bureau 
officer to an extent before unkuown in the legislation of the country, 
making him practically inde{)endent of the head of the Department. 

Thus ordered to take charge of this Bureau, and as a military officer 
bound to obey orders, General Howard found it necessary to organize 
au entirely new work, for which there were no formulas or precedents 
for guidance. 

To carry on this work thus proposed to be organized large sums of 
money and iiroper officers for disbursement were required. 

It is to be noticed here, however, that this Freedmen's Bureau was 
not created for the purpose of expending money, which was simply one 
of the incidents connected with its management. 

The education and the natural tastes which fit a man for a soldier seldom 
develop in him great skill in book-keeping — and General Howard was 
no exception to the ordinary rule. He was not selected for Commis- 
sioner of the Freedmen's Bureau for his eminence in accounts or in dis- 
bursing public; nu)ney, which a distinguished member of this court has 
testitied "has become a science" to which few can attain; but because 
it was believed that he could aud would honestly and faithfully do his 
best to repair some of the social and political breaches made by war. 



531 

Accordingly lie asked for General Ballocli, an old military ac- 
qnaintance, of long- service under his command, and of experience iu 
disbursing money, and this gentleman was assigned to him, and made 
chief disbursing- officer of the new Bureau, on the 2()th'of June, 1865. 

He also asked for other officers for various pur])oses about the same 
time, and occupied offices, and in the summer of 1805 the Bureau was 
fairly started upon its work. 

Its work then and thereafter had become so modified by the events 
of the war that it lay almost wholly with f!ie colored peo[)le of the 
South, and thereafter, and ever since, the Bureau has popularly been 
known as the Freed men's Bureau. 

Its immediate pressing work in the summer of 18r>5, and for four or 
five years afterwards, was mainly educational in the largest sense of 
the word. 

Here was a large portion of captured country with some four mil- 
lions of freednien, wdio at first thought that liberty might include 
license and possibly laziness, and seven millions of white people who 
were naturally sore at the turn of events, and commonly bare of all 
property except land. 

Both of these classes were to be educated so as to live in harmony 
with ea(;h other and all the world, and be fit for (jitizenshipand capable 
of self sup[)ort. 

On July 10, 1800, tlie Bureau liaving proved a success, it was extended 
by act of that date, with powers more ample even than before, and gen- 
erously supplied with money. 

On March 20, 1S(>7, the payment of bounties to colored soldiers was 
imposed upon the Bureau at the instance of the accounting officers of 
the Treasury Department, and for the benefit of such soldiers who, un- 
der existing modes of payment, were likely to lose a large i)art of their 
dues. 

The parti(ndar work of paying bounties devolved upon General Bal- 
loch, aiul was continued by him while he remained in the Bureau. 

On June 24, 1S6S, the Bureau was extended again, witli no limitation 
or restriction upon its former powers, and again by act of July 25, 1808. 

On April 0, 1870, on motion of Hon. Fernando Wood, of New York, 
an investigation was ordered by the Flouse of Bepresentatives of the 
Forty-first Congress, u[>on charges ])referred by Mr. Wood against Gen- 
eral Howard in his official character as Commissioner of the Fretnlmen's 
Bureau. 

This investigation occupied three months, and resulted in the adop- 
tion of the following resolution: 

^^Hesolred^ That the policy pursued by the United States toward four 
and a half millions of its people suddenly enfranchised by the events of 
a great civil war, in seeking to provide foi' their education, to render them 
independent and self-supportinj?, and in extending to them civil and po- 
litical equality, is a service of just national pride ; and that the House 
hereby acquits Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard of the groundless and cause- 
less charges lately preferred against him, and does hereby declare and 
record its judgement that iu saccesst'ully organizing and administering 
with fidelity, integrity, and ability the Freedmen's Bureau, which has 
contributed so much to the accomplishment of the first two of these 
great ends, lie is deserving of the gratitude of the x\ nierican people." 

On October 11, 1871, General Balloch was relieved wholly from duty 
as disbursing officer of the Bureau, and was succeeded in that capacity 
by General Howard himself, and he in turn by Maj. J. M. Brown. 

On Mar(;h 7, 1872, General Howard went to Arizona upon proper 



582 

orders, and was absent nntil June 20, 1872. Before he went away, how* 
ever, he had subn\ittcd estimates of expenses tor the next fiscal year, 
including a certain amount for completing the records. He had also in- 
structed General Whittlesey, his adjutant-general, to ask Congress to 
grant him, in addition to the small sum nanuHl, a little extension of 
time for putting affairs of the Bureau in proper order for turning over 
to his successor. 

The efforts of General Whittlesey in both particulars were rendered 
ineffectual by the action of the Secretary of War, who ])referred the 
immediate transl'er of the Bureau, since it was proposed to put it under 
his future charge. 

On June 10, 1872, while General Howard was absent, the act was 
passed which transferred the Bureau to the Secretary of War, who put 
it in charge of Assistant Adjutant-General Thouuis M. Yin(;ent. 

General Howard had returned from Arizona on June 20, 1872, with a 
party of Indians in charge, the care of whom, and the preparation of 
reports in connecfion with the Indian affairs, occu[)ied his time for the 
next twenty days. 

At the end of that time, on July 10, 1872, he visited Arizona again on 
ofticial business, and was absent from Washington until November, 
1872. 

After his return, his time was given almost exclusively to Indian af- 
fairs until the early part of 1873, when he was able to devote his atten- 
tion to the closing u]) of the affairs of the late Bureau. 

On January 11, 1873, the Secretary of War made a communication to 
Congress forwarding a report "on the condition of the affairs of the 
Freedmen's Bureau," the tenor of which was a shari) criticism, by way 
of inference, ui)on the management of that Bureau by General Howard, 
and a manifest distrust of his truthfulness. 

This was followed on February 7, 1873, by a communication to Con- 
gress by General Howard in reply, which was in substance a warm 
and rather indignant denial of the inferences contained in the report, 
accompanying the previous communication of the Secretary of War. 

In March, 1873, one Shaw made, by letter, a complaint, to the War 
Dei>artment. certain material statements in which were afterward found 
to be erroneous, upon which complaint the attention of Assistant Ad- 
jutant-General Vincent was directed toward the financial affairs of the 
late Bureau. 

Other comi)laiuts arising in the Adjutant-General's office, in regard 
to incompleteness of the records transferred from the Bureau, led to 
additional correspondence and some i^esearches in this particular. 

Certain cases where there were complaints that bounty for colored 
soldiers had not been paid to the proi)er claimants were about this time 
forwarded by the Second Auditor of the Treasury, for transmissal to 
the Department of Justice, lor the purpose of prosecuting the parties 
supposed to have actually defrauded (he soldiers. 

These ^ia.ses of complaint were forwarded by the War Department to 
the Attorney-General, with an inquiry as to the responsibility and cul- 
pability of General Howard and his principal disbursing ofiticer, General 
BallocLi, 

Uixm a rei)ort of the Attorney General, the import of whicli to per- 
sons unskilled in law^ w^ould seem to be that the law-officer named had 
been of opinion that General Howard was responsible pecuniarily 
for all public moneys disbursed by other people (connected with his 
Bureau, however remotely, the W^ar Department took up seriously the 
matter of investigation of the financial affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau. 



533 

Tiiese iiivestigfations resalted in the report of Assistant Adjutant- 
General Vincent, of August 4, 1873 ; also a subsequent report, of Sep- 
tember 23, 1873 ; also a report of Inspector-General Schriver, of October 
3, 1873, all to the Secretary ot War. 

That oflicial, on December 4, 1873, addressed a communication on the 
snbject to the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United 
States, and on January 5, 1874, a subsequent coiiiuiunic;ition. 

These letters being referred to an appropriate committee, resulted in 
the resolution of February 10, 1874, nnder which this court was organ- 
ized, and from which it derives all of its powers. 

With these preliminary remarks by way of brief statement of facts, I 
l)roceed to consider the authority and duty of the court in the premises. 

This court has authority to investigate in reference to certain charges 
of the Secretary of War against General Howard, and report their 
opinion whether or not there rests upon General Howard a moral, tech- 
nical, or legal responsibility for oifeuses, if any, which may be discovered 
upon such investigation. 

The [)nrticuhir language of the act in question is unusual, but the 
meaning is hardly doubtful. The key-notr> to tiie whole is the word 
'^oftenses," which witrd, in law, undoubtedly signihes violations of law. 
(See Webster, Worcester, and Bouvier.) 

Another imjtortant word in the act is "responsibility," an<l, in con- 
nection with the qualifying words, " moral," "• technical,'' and "legal," 
it most certainly means a responsiliility created by operation of ^aw, 
resting upon General Floward, which is a legal responsibility — arespun 
sibility arising from neglect or want of good conduct upon his part, 
which is a moral responsibility — or such an act on his part as amounts 
to a violation of form, which is a teehni(;al responsibility. But this 
"responsibility" is clearly the responsibility of General Howard alone, 
while the "offenses" may be the acts of other persons. 

Restated, then, the duty and authority of the court Avould appear to 
be to determine from the proofs submitted to them — ■ 

1. Whether there has been discovered any " offense" or violation of 
law on the part of General Howard, who iji that event is of course 
responsible, 

2. Whether there has been any offense or violation of law on the part 
of any other person. 

3. Whether for such offense or violation of law on the part of another 
person a responsibility rests upon General Howard, either moral, tech- 
nical, or legal. 

It is proper to say here that it is quite evident that there is a differ- 
ence or disagreement between the accounting officers of the Treasury 
Department and the officers of the Adjutant-General's Bureau of the 
War Department respecting the duties of the accounting officers referred 
to, so far as affects General Howard and the Preedmen's Bureau. 

This difference or disagreement is mainly that the accounting officers 
of the Treasury- deal with suspended balances against all disbursing 
officers, as matter of mistake, subject to and removable by explanation, 
and the Adjutant-General's Office treat the same balances upon the ]>art 
of disbursing officers of the Bureau as debts certainly, as fraudulent 
debts [»robably, to be paid at once, and explained and corrected after- 
ward. 

It is the misfortune of the accused. General Howard, thus placed be- 
tween these two (Tiffering sets of officials, that he himself is an officer of 
the Army, as it renders him amenable to pay money when lie maj- believe 



534 

tliat lie ouglit not to pay it, or be liable to punishment for disobedience 
of orders if be does not pay it. 

In view of all the foregoinji\ we i)roceed to consider the charges made 
by the honorable Secretary ot War in his own order of enuiuevatioii, aud 
in the light of the testimony a(hlnced. 

First charge, 174 bounty cases, in which claimants are supposed to 
assert more or less clearly that they have not been paid their dues 
by the Government. 

It appears that in each of these cases the proper amount of money 
was sent either b^^ General Howard, or Balloch, or Brown, his disburs- 
ing otlicers. 

There is no conclusive proof that the money was not received in every 
instance by the proper claimant, except in that of Harriet A. Walker, 
where the money was returned to Major Brown, who acknowledges his 
own liability for the same, and relieves General Howard from all respon- 
sibility therefor. 

Among these cases, those examined in the Eunkle court-martial ap- 
pear to have been treated by the court as instances where money for- 
warded by the Bureau had not been paid to the proper claimants, as the 
court awarded a tine upon Runkle su.ffitneut to cover their amount. 

This line the President remitted, and, by this act of discharging the 
pecuniary liability of the principal offender, destroyed all pretense of 
looking back of liuukle to tix any responsibility upon parties forward- 
ing.money to him. 

Of these 174 cases, 165 were paid by General Balloch, 7 by General 
Howard, and 2 by Major Brown. 

It has been proved by the concurrent, harmonious, and consistent 
evidence of the chiefs of bureaus of the War Department and the ac- 
counting oflicers of the Treasury, that the only pecuniary responsibility 
of General Howard for the ofticial acts of his disbursing oflicers was 
that which would arise from a lack of proper diligence, prudence, and 
care upon his (Howard's) part in his ofiicial character as Commissioner 
of the Freedmen's Bureau. (See also United States vs. Thomas, 15 Wal- 
lace, 337.) 

It also ap])ears from the testimony of the accounting officers of the 
Treasury that should it turn out that any part or the whole of the 
amount supposed at any time to have been due these 174 claimants had 
not in fact been paid to them, and was still due, the Treasury officials 
would have the right to state a new account, suspend the amount against 
the disbursing officer, and, npon proper proof of diligence, care, and 
prudence upon his part, discharge him of all res])onsibility for the same. 

This is the most serious view of this charge which can be presented, 
as affecting General Howard, namely, that at some future day he ujay 
have a new account stated, a suspension ordered, and be called upon for 
exi)laimtion. Such a suspension appears from the testimony of the Sec- 
ond Comptroller to be no offense. 
To state briefly the answers to this charge in their order, they are: 

1. No fi^ud is charged or preteiided against General Howard, or 
either of his disbursing officers, in this ])articular, and therefore there 
is no "offense" of any character. It can be no violation of law, or of 
morals, to pay money innocently to wrong people. Where there is no 
•'offense" there is no " responsibility." ^ 

2, The accounting officers of the Treasury have settled the accounts, 
so far as relates to these matters, aud will not reopen them except upon 
l)rQof of fraud. 



535 

3. The mouey was iu these cases all paid out by General Howard or 
his disbursing officers, aud none returned, except : 

4. Harriet A. Walker's money, of the return of which no notice was 
given Howard or Brown, but for which the hitter hohls himself person- 
ally responsible, and for which his official bond is available. 

5. In the instance where the claimants were probably defrauded of 
their money by the sub-agent, and were afterward placed in the way of 
its collection by fine against the guilty party, the Executive of the United 
States remitted the fine. 

6. The evidence is overwhelming as to the care, fidelity, and diligence 
of General Howard in his official administrative character. 

7. Major Vincent, iu his report to the Secretary of War, regards this 
matter as a violation of the acts of August (3, 1840, and of March 2, 
1863, the first of which directs officers to " keep an accurate entry of each 
sum received, and of each payment or transfer," and the second forbids 
the officer from presenting claims for settlement, which he knows to be 
false, fictitious, or fraudulent. 

8. The proofs distinctly bring this matter out of the reach of either of 
the acts cited. 

The second charge, the defalcation of Mandeville, requires but brief 
attention. 

INlandeville was appointed by General Howard on excellent recom- 
mendation, and it appears to have been deserved. He gave sufficient 
bonds. He and his clerk were cut off by disease at about the same time. 

After his death, several persons asserted that Mandeville had not in 
fact paid them, when the record exhibited proofs of payment. Mande- 
ville's bond was prom[)tly put in suit l)y General Howard, and this has 
been, and is now, defended by the sureties. Upon this charge, we 
answer : 

1. That there was no offense or violation of law in the appointment of 
Mandeville by General Howard. 

2. That there is no proof that Mandeville was a defaulter. 

3. That if lie was, his bond will make good the deficit. 

4. General Howard has exercised great care, prudence, and diligence 
in this matter, and, morally, is less responsible for loss, should any 
occur, than are the heirs of General Mower, who recommended Man- 
deville. 

5. Major Vincent reports this matter as a violation of the act of July 
17, 1802. 

This arct requires officers to settle accounts monthly instead of quar- 
terly. It requires a violent exercise of the imagination to bring the case 
of Mandeville within the i)rovisions of this act, as Mandeville did not 
have to render any accounts to the Treasury, evcMi when alive. There 
is no pretense that Balloch, Howard, and Brown dul not render monthly 
accounts. 

The third charge, the O. 0. French defalcation, deserves scarcely any 
attention. 

French was well recommended, and gave a good bond, ^hich was 
prom{>tly put in suit, and nearly all the debt has been paid, and it is ap- 
parent that the whole will be collected, if it has not been already re- 
ceived. 

1. Upon this charge we say : French's ap[>ointment by Howard was 
not an offense, against either law or morals. 

2. Good bond was required^^ 

3. Suit promptly commenced. 

4. The debt nearly or all collected and wholly secured. 



536 

5. jNIajor Vincent reports tliis matter as a violation of the same act 
as tluit cited in Mandeville's case, and no comment seems necessary. 

Fourtli charge, is the amount in Runkle's hands, $073.24. This 
was collected by the United States, by stoppage of his pay, long before 
the sitting of the court. 

Fifth charge, of money paid Kunkle, $1,331.03. The proof is that 
this was Balloch's private money, loaned by him to Runkle, and a 
promissory note taken back, and there is no contradictory evidence in 
this regard. 

Sixth charge, under the proofs, covers the conversion of bounty- 
money into Grovernment bonds, and the disposition of the interest 
arising from the same. 

It appears from the testimony that this bounty-money accumulated 
in General Howard's hands much faster than he could use it, and it 
occurred to him that if he could invest a portion in Government bonds, 
the interest would supply a fund out of which payments could be made 
for the benefit of the freedmen. 

Before making any such investment he consulted the Second Comp- 
troller and other Treasury ofticials, and upon their sanction purchased 
the bonds, deposited them in the Treasury, used the accretions for i)ay- 
ments under the second section of the act of June 15, ISOG, accounted 
for the same with the Treasury, and has had his accounts allowed. 

When ordered so to do, he sold the bonds, and replaced the money in 
the Treasury. 

To this charge we answer: 

1. The conversion was no offense against law, in the judgment of the 
Second Comptroller. 

2. There was no offense in its nse^ as he used the proceeds for public 
purpose. 

3. No money was lost to the Treasury, but money was gained thereby. 

4. The increase was accounted for under proper laws. 

5. Ko fraud is charged or imputed against him in this transaction. 
Upon this charge Major Vincent cites the acts of August 6, 1846, 

March 3, 1857, March 2, 1863, and June 14, 1866. The first requires 
entries of receipts and payments. The Government had all of General 
Balloch's books of account in their possession, and made no proof in 
this regard. The act of March 3, 1857, requires deposits of Government 
money to be made in the Treasury or a public depository. There is no 
proof that this was not done. The act of March 2, 1863, forbids the 
presentation (Tf claims which the officer hioivs to be false, fictftious, or 
fraudulent. There has been no proof even against Balloch to this extent, 
and far less against Howard. The act of June 14, 3 866, forbids deposit 
of public money except in the Treasury, and also the use" of public 
money by an officer to his own use. There is no evidence upon either 
branch against either Howard or Balloch, but the proofs are the reverse. 

The seventh charge occupies nuich s])ace in the exhibits of the hon- 
orable Secretary of War. 

Briefly, the retained-bouuty fund, the sul)ject of this charge, was local 
bounty withheld, by order of General Butler, for colored recruits 
credited to (piotas of certain Northern States, and came into General 
Balloch's hands, as trustee, by the terms of tlie President's order of 
June 2, 1865. 

General Balloch kept this fund in a Government depository, and paid 
it out openly and notoriously to claimants as they ai)plied, rendering" 
accounts and vouchers to the Third Auditor, and reporting it in the 



587 

aunual reports of the Freedinen's Bureau to the Secretary of War, up 
to 1809. 

The Third Auditor wouhl not examine and settle the accounts, which 
were taken to the Second Auditor, wiio wouhl not examine and settle 
them, and they were taken awny by General Balloch, and became 
finally lost, as fully explained by him. 

The balance, as required by law, has been accounted for and turned 
over pr()])erly. 

No coaiplaint has been made in any instjuice that the claimant has 
not been paid. 

To this charge we answer: 

1. That there wjks no offense on the part of General Howard, or of Bal- 
loch, even, in this transaction. 

2. It was not a Government fund. 

.'). There was no concealment about its management. 

4. Accounting ofBcers of the Treasury would not settle the accounts 
connected with it. 

5. It lias since been accounted for. 

0. Major Vincent reports this matter as a violation of the acts of 
March 3, 1817, August 0, 1840, March 3, 1857, and July 17, 1802. As 
this money was in no sense public money, none of the foregoing acts 
are a[)plicable except the first, or act of March 3,1817, and tiie Treasury 
Dei)artment could not, and would not, settle the account. When, under 
the act of March 7, 1807, it became in any way public mouey, steps were 
taken for a proper settlement. 

The eighth charge has two branches, one for $30,314.77, misappli- 
cation, tlie other 173,048.40, for wrong payments. As admitted by 
the witnesses for the accused, each branch is erroneous and untrue, 
and, legally. General Howard is not called to answer to it, and the 
court would not be authorized to make any finding or opinion upon 
it. The entire authority of the court is confined to the law creating 
it, and that law directs them to examine the charges contained 
in the two letters of the Secretary of War, and their power and 
duty ends at that precise point. It follows, then, if this charge be re- 
stated, put in new language, and changed in meaning, it is not the 
charge contained in the Secretary's letter, but a charge which is not 
found there. 

The charge, however, as restated and expiaintMl, is m^t proved, as facts 
are required to be proved in a proceeding of a criminal nature, clearly, 
distinctly, and beyond a reasonable doubt. (3 Greeuleaf on Evidence, 
paragrai)h 29.) 

The $30,314.77 branch of the clmrge, according to Vincent, should 
have deducted from it an amount of $25,240 S3, and possiblj", according 
to Harrison, the same item should also be deducted from it, and there 
is left a balance of $11,073.94. 

According to Harrison the further sum of $13,400.14 may also be de- 
ducted, and there is notliing left. 

This sum, larger or smaller, is said to have been im{)roperly taken for 
educational purposes. Referring to General Howard's statement, that 
he had, at the time this money was disbursed, funds other than ap- 
pro])riation funds, and referring to his last financaal report to the Secre- 
tary of War, found on page 41 of the printed charge exhibit, it is not 
ordy far from clear that any of the api)roj)riation funds were improperly 
used in the disbursement of this item of $30,314.77, or the sum as it 
would be if [jroperly stated, but the weight oi' testimony is decidedly 
against such a supposition. 



538 

This same view applies equally to the hypothesis that some part of 
these disbursements came from appropriations of a former year not 
available for such use. 

The statement of xissistant Adjntant General Vincent is made up in 
the li.uht of the act of June 14, 1S(!0, and constantly and persistently ig- 
nores the later. a(!t of June 1."), 18G0. 

To the other branch, of $73,048.40, tlie fore,<>oing- remarks areappli- 
cable to a great degree. 

From this sum Vincent and Harrison agree that $25,240.83 should be 
deihutted, and Harrison, the expert, by the way, who spent weeks if not 
months of labor on the lignres, is iu donbt if $1.">,4()0.14 more should not 
be deducted. This would leave $34,347.4.3, and this sum agrees with 
Balloch's statement, which is the only clear one given by any witness 
about this charge. 

He (Ballocli) admits that he took, as he thiidcs, about $3r),000 or 
$3(),0(H) of the bounty-fund, to enable him to keep iu operation the ma- 
chinery of payiiig bounties, such as clerks, agents, and olHices, and re- 
turned it to the proper fuiul in a short time, and as soon as an appro- 
priation was made. He defends his action upon usage, and upon the 
law of ue(!essity. His principal duty under the law was to pay the 
bounties to ueedy claimants, poor colored soldiers, who were not over- 
paid at best for services, the value of which soldiers oidy can appreciate. 
He could stop the machinery for the payment of bounties, and the pay- 
ment of bounties would stop. He could borrow the bounty money, and 
thus keep up the nmchinery for its payment, and [)ay it out in bounties, 
and he did so. 

Thire are instances where, to follow all the forms of the accounting 
law, is to destroy the desire<l effect of it. There are instances where a 
strict obedience to the law would be a crime. 

A quartermaster who buys horses, and has money to buy more, but 
has no specific funds wherewith to buy corn and hay for the horses, and 
consequently allows the horses to starve, ought to be cashiered. 

All of these laws in regard to the accounting of public mouey are to 
be construed according to the law of necessity. 

Such laws have no more moral significance or force than a law would 
have regulating the size of the lugeon-holes in which files are kei)t. 
Within the past mouth the complaint has been made on the floor of 
Congress that laws forlddding transfers and the use of balances had 
been, and always would be, constantly violated by the heads of the De- 
partments of the United States. 

To this branch of the charge there are various answers: 

1. General Howard did not know of the transaction. The testimony 
is positive upou this point. 

2. The accounting officers settled this account, and their acquittance 
is a judgment upon the law and the fact which neither this court nor 
any one else can go behind while the account remains closed, as it is to 
this day. (Act of March 30, 1868. Chappeldaine vs. Dechauax, 4 Orauch, 
114.) 

3. The law supposed to be violated was inoperative at the time and 
long afterward in the Third Auditor's office, and the money was used 
only for the benefit of the jsoldiers. 

4. There was no loss to the Government, and there was a benefit to 
the soldiers. 

5. Balloch's motives were commendable and not blameworthy when 
these payments were made and the accounts settled. 

6. It follows, then, that if au oli'ense was committed, which is ques- 



539 

tionable, it was comiuitted by General Ballocli. General Howard is not 
morally responsible, because be did not know of the act of bis disburs- 
ing' otHcer. He is not legally resp;)n.sih!L', because the principal is re- 
sponsible only for the lawful act of his agent, and never for the uidaw- 
ful act, uidess it is done by his express direction. (Story's Agency, par- 
agrai)h 310.) 

7. Major Vincent reports this matter as a violation of the acts of 
March 2, 1803, of January 31, 18(58, of July 12, 1870, and of the 39th 
Article of War. The act of ]\rarch.2, 1803, forbids vouchers known by 
the officer to be fraudulent; that of January 31, 18b8, forbids the Pres- 
ident from authorizing transfers of approiuiations in the same Depart- 
ment; and that of July 12, 1870, provides that unexpended balances at 
the end of the year shall be applied only to payment of exjienses incurred 
during that year, or upon fultillment of contracts nuule within that year. 
The last-named ^j-t alone appears pertinent in this matter, and the proof 
is not of that clear and convincing nature required in criminal [)ro('eed- 
ings, which wouhl show a violation even of this act. The 30th Article 
of War relates to an embezzlement or criminal misap[)lication of money, 
and it is simply ridiculous under the proofs to seek to give it any rela- 
tion to this particular matter. 

There remains then onlj" the supplementary charge of erroneous 
balances at the Treasurv, recited in the Secretary's letter of January 
3, 1874. 

To this charge the answer is simple and direct. 

1. The charge is groundless in fact, and the testimony is overwhelm- 
ing ujKtn this point, 

2. If there had been auN thing in the charge, there is not a particle 
of evidence that General Howard knew anything about it. 

There is no " oifense," and of course no " responsibility " of any sort, 
resting u[)on General Howard in this i)articular. 

In addition to the charges proper set out specilically in the letters 
of the Secretary of War, upon which we have commented, there are in 
the papers attached to the letters of the Secretary of War, by i;\ ay of 
specifications, minor matters which merit more or less attention — 
namely: 

A. The confusion and incom[)leteness of records. 

B. The Shepherd voucher. 

C. Balloch's mode of doing business. 

D. General Howard's mode of doing busiiu^ss. 

E. Seventeen complaint-cases not included in the 174 cases. 

A. With regard to the records, the evidence. is so full, as to their 
condition, and as to the explanations and excsises, with regard to their 
absolute completion, that norhing more need be said, than that — 

1. There was no offense or violation of law, to begin with. 

2. General Howard was away on duty when the confusion and incom- 
pleteness, if ever, occurred. 

3. It is doubtful, from the proof, if it ever did occur to an unusual 
extent. 

B. The Shepherd voucher. 

This account was twice rendered, and two credits taken for it. It 
was done by General Ballocli. General Howard believes that he first 
found it out, and informed the War Dei)artment. Major Vincent 
believes that /te^bund it out before General Howard did. 

This is not a matter of the slightest consequence, since it is indispu- 
table that General Howard informed the War Department of the trans- 
action as soon as he (Howard) heard of the error. 



540 

The answer upon this subject is obvious — 

1. It was General Balloch's matter, and not General Howard's. 

2. If it was an ofteuse, which is very doubtful, as it was clearly a 
mistake in accounting, it was Balloch's and not Howard's. 

3. Balloch aceei)ts the responsibility and holds himself ready to pay, 
if he cannot explain. 

4. There was no moral or legal responsibility of General Howard's 
for this offense, if there was any, because he evidently was not con- 
scious of its occurrence, and certainly could have had no fraudulent 
intent with regard to it. 

C. Balloch's mode of doing business, simply was not that of the 
Adjutant General's Office. It performed more work for the same 
money, with about the same proportion of mistakes and losses. There 
is no offense or violation of law here upon the part of Balloch, as the 
law did iu)t prescribe the particular mode of doing Ihe business. As 
to apparent irregularities in his mode of doing business, his explanatif)ns 
are satisfactory and conclusive. 

At all events, even the opinion of the Attorney-General, given in the 
exhibits, does not go so far as to state that the " responsibility" of 
General Howard, under the act of March 27, 1867, extended to modes 
of business. 

I). General Howard's mode of doing business has but one uniform 
presentation by the testimony. It shows, in strong light, an honest, 
faithful, vigilant, prudent, diligent oiticial, doing his work with his 
whole heart, and mind, and strength. 

There is no single instance of neglect, inattention, or indifference, 

E. The 17 cases are subject to the remarks before made about the 
174 cases. In such of the cases, where money was returned, it was 
paid over and accounted for. In one instance, under orders from the 
War Department, it was evidently paid by General Howai-d when he 
ought not to have i^aid it. 

In no instance is there any offense or violation of law, and of course, 
no responsibility of any kind for such offense. 

It will be observed that, in the preceding consideration of the par- 
ticular charges, and the incidental matters of complaint in the specifi- 
cations, nothing has been said about General Howard's " technical 
resi)onsibility,'' for the violations of law by others. 

Of course, it the violations of law had been by himself, there would 
have been a direct legal responsibility. 

I have preferred as a matter of convenience to treat this matter of 
vicarious responsibility by itself, and free from all mental disturbances 
of moral and legal responsibility, for the obvious reason that from its 
nature it is a minute subject at best, and required a steady and con- 
stant examination in order to see it at all It is not difficult to under- 
stand a moral "responsibility," as one imposed by a due respect for 
the laws of God ; or a legal responsibility as one capable of enforce- 
ment by the laws of man ; but a "techni(;al responsibility," which is de- 
pendent neither upon the laws of God nor man, is not readily apparent. 
The construction adopted by the court, upon the second day of its ses- 
sion, that the word technical " as defined i)y Webster and by Johnson " 
should be accepted, does not wholly free the question from embarrass- 
ment. That construction would contlne the responsibility as one be- 
longing to the profession of General Howard, or, in a w»rd, a soldier-like 
or ofhcer-like responsibility for the violations of law by other people. 

I understand it to be grounded belief, among officers of the Army, 
that technicalities are especially under the management of the office of 



541 

the Adjataut-Generiiil, and therefore a critical exaraiuation has been 
made of the U?tters proceeding from tliat office, and printed in the va- 
rious exhibits, in order to find the tecliiiical responsibility of General 
Howard for tlie offenses or violations of law by other persons. 

I confess, however, that this examination has not made tliis matter 
quite clear, and I liave therefore carefully read for information the tes- 
timony of the Adjutant-General, Townsend, and the assistant adjutani- 
general, Vincent. 

1 find in the testimony of the latter, upon the eighth chnrge, that he 
believes that General Howard is "responsible'' for the sum of -SSG.oli.TT 
paid by General Balloch, and onght to be compelled to pay that amount 
back to the United States, while at the same time he admits that no 
part of the sum has been lost to the United States ; and the true amount 
is not $30,314.77, but $25,240.83 less than that sum, or $ll,0fo.74 in 
the whole. 

In other words, that a disbursing officer who pays just debts of the 
United States out of United States moneys in his hands, but from the 
wrong fund, is "responsible" for three times the amount, and ought to 
be made to pay it. 

Likewise in the model account B, upon page 14 of the charges exliibit, 
as it "should have been stated to the Treasury Dei)artment," which ac- 
count is the production of Major Vincent, it is found to be the duty of 
an ofticer of the United States Army, who is without Government 
money, to pay all bills coming properly to him, out of his own pocket, 
and afterwiird get the money back from the United States if he can. 

A responsibility of some kind to jmy these bills must of course attach 
to this ofticer in the model account. 

These sorts of resi)onsibility I am quite sure are neither moral nor 
legal, and if of any kind, must be "technical responsibilities" as re- 
gardeil by an assistant adjutant general of the Army. 

Preferring, however, to accept the definition of the coui't, I premise 
that there must be an "offense" or violation of law by some person be- 
fore the question of General Howard's "technical" responsibility there- 
for can be considered. 

Has there been any violation of law on the part of any person in any 
of the transactions covered by the several charges of the honoral)le 
Secretary of War ? 

I can find proof upon none, except possibly that covered by the 
eighth charge, and by the Shepherd voucher. 

Witl) regard to the eighth charge, has there been proof to show such 
unofficer-like conduct upon the part of General Howard as would make 
him "technically" responsible? 

The wrong act, if any, it will be remembered, was done by Balloch, 
and General Howaixl knew nothing about it. The monthly account 
gave the cash balances and payments correctly. 

The abstract, when presented, was apparently correct in form. 
There was nothing in the transaction to attract General Howard's at- 
tention. 

If bethought anything about it, it would be that Balloch had tollowed 
his advice, aud borrowed the money on his personal resi)onsibility. 
The memoranda about checks upon the vouchers would not have been 
inconsistent with this belief. 

There was nothing, then, in this transaction, so far as relates to Gen- 
eral Howard, inconsistent with the officer like conduct uniformly at- 
tributed to him by all the witnesses. 

And with regard to the Shepherd voucher, it is apparent that Gen- 
eral Howard remembered nothing of the first voucher when the second 



542 

one was filed. The instmit he was informed of the second voucher, lie 
reported the occurrence to the Secretary of War, and asked the Third 
Auditor to cancel his approval- upon the voucher. Was not this con- 
duct eminently otticer-like? Would not a different conduct have been 
iin officer-like'? 

With regard to any other transactions embraced in the charges, and 
accompanying exhibits, which may have been overlooked in this re- 
view, it is asserted, confidently, that the conduct of General Howard 
will be found upon the ])roo1s to have been that of a vigihmt, careful, 
honest, and high-minded officer, most scrupulous even in small things, 
where such covered any question of duty, or of right or wrong. 

Having thus considered somewhat in detailed the particular charges, 
it will not be out of phice to present some general views and considera- 
tions aftecting the whole matter. 

General Howard was placed at the head of a new Bureau, having 
for its great and primal object the noble purpose of converting an igno- 
rant and long-oppressed people into better material for acomnum citizen- 
ship witli the white people of the United States. To this i)urpose his 
turn of mind, his religious education and belief — more than all, the na- 
tive geireiosity and manliness of his nature, all inclined. 

To it he gave more than duty called for — namely, an exact and con- 
scientious discharge of his labors ; he gave every power of his mind 
and heart with an enthusiasm not only striking but touching, as com- 
pared with the ordinary pertormance of official duties. 

His Avhole soul was in the great purposes of his work, and the details 
of the expenditures of money were committed, as they necessarily must 
have been, to subordinates. 

Yet, even here, he used all the ordinary safeguards, checks and inves- 
tigations in use in other Army Bureaus. 

He called to his aid, in the various Southern States, men of mark and 
character in the Army, men of liistoric fame. He collected immediately 
about him officers and civilians, some of whom have been before this 
conrt, and all of these, without exception, ])rove to be gentlemen who 
left the Bureau to step into positions of equal or greater responsibility, 
to which men of uncertain character and doubtful ability are not invited. 

When the conduct of this Bureau was investigated by Congress, the 
committee reported the result in language never more applicable than 
at this m mient : 

" Has the Bureau been a snccess? 

" Success ! The wcn^ld can point to nothing like it in all the history of 
emancipation. ISTo thirteen millions of dollars were ever more wisely 
spent ; yet, from the beginning, this scheme has encountered the bitterest 
opposition and the most unrelenting hate. Scoffed at like a thing of 
shame, often struck and sorely wounded, sometimes in the house of its 
friends. ai)ologized |for rather than defended, yet with God on its side, 
the Freedmen\s ]3ureau has triumphed; civilization has received a new 
impulse, and the friends of humanity may well rejoice. 

" The Bureau work is being rapidly brought to a close, and its accom- 
lilishments will enter into history, while the unfounded accusations 
brought against it will be forgotten. There is a day and hour when 
slander lives not. When the passions Of men subside, and when the 
dust of time has well lallen, then comes the hour of calm judgment. 

" Many-tougued scandal has the briefest of existence. 

'A wandering uiglit-moth, 
Ahurefl by taper gleaming bright, 
Now busy, now all darkening, 
She snaps and fades to emptj^ air.' 



543 

" Evil is quickly forgotten, ti'utb alone is abiding. 

" In conclusion the coinuiittee tind, on the wbole case, tbat tbe cbarges 
are utterly groundless and causeless j tbat tbe Commissioner bas been a 
devoted, bonest, and able i>ublic servant. 

" Tbe committee tind tbat bis great trust bas been performed wisely, 
disinterestedly, economically, and most successfully. It tbere b(^ any 
tbing in tbe coiuluct of tbe aifairs of tbe Bureau wbicb could excite a 
susi)icion, even in tbe breast ot partisan or personal bate, it is owing to 
tbe fact tliat General lioward, conscious ot bis own purity, intent on 
bis great work, bas never stopped to tbink of tbe ai)pearances wiiicb 
men of less conscious integrity iniicb more carefully regard." 

Under tbe administration of General Howard tbe Bureau disbursed 
above tM'euty millicms of dollars. In business of sucb magnitude mis- 
takes are inevitable. Wben tbe business was new, as in tbis instance, 
and had to build tbe road over wbicb it was traveling, tbe cbances for 
mistakes were increased. Yet the result of tbe wbole, as it now ap[)ears, 
is tbat General Howard's and Major Brown's ])ersonal accounts are set- 
tled at tbe Treasury, and ot tbe enormous disbursements made by Gen- 
eral Ballocb, tbere are suspensions of some $l'0,OUO altogetber. 

Under tbe administration of General Howard, tbe payment of boun- 
ties to colored soldiers was made more rapidly, more cbeaply, and just 
about as safely as at present. 

In all tbe transactions of tbe Bureau, now before tlie court, tbere is 
no cbarge of fraud or of dishonesty upon tbe part of General Howard, 
and, more tban tbat, tbere is no such imputation from any responsible 
source. 

It turns out in tbis investigation tbat tbe accounting officers of tbe 
Treasury, whose duty it is by law to settle all money-accounts, regard 
their trilling suspensions in General Howard's accounts as ordinary mat- 
ters, im[)orting no violation ot law, but calling for explanations, and re- 
movable ui>on sucb explanations. 

On the other hand, tbe officials of tbe Adjutant-General's Office, whose 
duty by law is not to settle money-accounts, insist bj" their action tbat 
the accounting officers of the Treasury either do not know their duty, 
or, if they know it, that they do not pt^rform it. 

Between these two bodies a contest arises, from which General Howard 
now suffers, and from a repetition of which any officer of tbe Army is 
liable to suffer. 

There being no charge of fraud or dishonesty alleged or imputed to 
General Howard, tbis whole subject of difference between tbe two op- 
posing sets of officials resolves itself into a question of accounts. 

In this view it matters not whether General Howard in fact owes cer- 
tain moneys to tbe "United States or does not owe them. If he does not 
owe them, then there is an end of the matter. If be does owe them, it 
is certainly no crime, no offense, no violation of law, to owe money to 
tbe United States, so long as the account is unsettled. When the account 
is settled, and a fiiuil balance struck, and General Howard is notified 
thereof, and declines or neglects to pay, then the United States ma}' 
])roceed against him as a debtor, but not as a criminal. 

That time has not yet come ; tbe accounts are not yet settled, tlie final 
balance struck, or General Howard notified of his indebtedness. 

The court will bear in mind, and keep steatiily in view, tbat the (]ues- 
tion presented bylaw to them is a different question from tbat presented 
to tbe AttorueyGenoral by tbe War Department, and found on page 3 
of the Obarges Exhibit. 



544 

The question presented to the Attorney-General was as to the pecu- 
niary responsibility of General Howard, and the answer to this question 
is embraced in the opinion of the law-oflicer named. 

The (juestion presented by the (lovernment to this court is, whether 
there has been a violation of law by anybody, and if so, whether Gen- 
eral Howard is res{)onsil)le for that violation of law. Therefore, the 
opinion of the honorable xVttorney-General, as presented to this court, is 
of no consequence whatever, and has no application whatever. Any dif- 
ferent view would be to constitute this court, composed of officers of 
long service and large experience, well skilled in all matters of conduct 
which affect the character of a gentlemafi, into an auditing committee 
on accounts, in which, with one excejjtion, they could not be expected 
to be expert. 

At the risk of being tiresome, this point, which is vital, is reiterated: 
This court is to consider the question of the violation of law, and the 
responsibility of General Howard therefor, and not the (luestiou of 
General Howard's indebtedness to anybody. 

In conclusion I have some remarks which my individual sense of duty 
as counsel for the accused comi)els me to make. 

The communications of the Secretary of War to Congress containing 
these charges are so drawn, either purposely or thoughtlessly, as to pre- 
sent General Howard to the country as a virtual defaulter, or robber of 
the Government, of a sum amounting to several hundred thousand dol- 
lars. I believe that this communication was signed by the honorable 
Secretary without full examination or (jonsideratioii, and in the ordinary 
routine of his office. It is uow clear that these charges of the honora- 
ble Secretary have been cruelly unjust to General Howard. 

To the true soldier there is nothing so dear as his character for 
courage, honor, and truthfulness. His honesty must be beyond ques- 
tion, ilis place among his military friends must be maintained by his 
constant personal character. 

A man in high i)olitical place may be wickedly slandered over and 
over ayain, and his political associates think none the less of him, as he 
has been held up to public view in just the same way they have been, 
or ma^' expect to be. An Army officer's good re()utation, however, 
stands among his associates as a woman's chastity does among women. 
It is not often assailed in either instance, but when assailed, whether 
truthfully or not, it is tarnished, and many years of circumspect con- 
duct hardly restores it to its original luster. 

This attack ui)on General Howard, whether intended or not for mis- 
chief, has come from members of his own profession of less service in 
the held and of less military reputation, who ought to have known what 
its etfect must have been. 

He calls upon you, his judges, by your decision in this investigation, 
to relieve him from the unjust but widespread imputation against his 
honesty, his truthfulness, his soldierly honor ; to acquit him before the 
whole country of^any attempt or any intent to do any wrong; and, more 
than all, to so express yourselves that the comrades of his youth at the 
Military Academy, and his older and well-tried associates in battle, in 
march, and in canq), may never have reason, publi(;ly or i>rivately, to 
be ashamed that they called themselves friends of General Oliver O. 
Howard. 

In conclusion, may it please the court, I wish, in the name of General 
Howard, and on my own account also, to return his thanks to the court 
for the patience with which they have listened to the testimony, and the 



545 

courtesy with which I have been treated ; and also to the judge-advo- 
cate, who has been placed, as I know, in a very delicate position ; and 
to him the accused and myself owe many favors for his kind and con- 
siderate conduct. 

The court then, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., adjourned, as per previous order 
of court. 



FOKTIETH DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, 
1810 F Street, Washington, D. C, 

Thursday, May 7, 1874 — 11 a. m. 
The court mat pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

rresoif. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A.; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

.3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Q. M. Gen., U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillerv, U. S. A. ; 
0. Col. J. J. Revnolds, Third Cavalrv, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, t. S. A. ; 

Major Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., jiulge-advocate. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., the accused, and George W. Dyer, 
esq., of counsel. 

The reading of the proceedings of the last meeting, of May 5, 1874, 
were postponed until the next — 

All the members of the court being present, the doors were closed 
for deliberation. 

Upon the doors being re opened, the accused and his counsel being 
present, the president of the court, on behalf of the court, directed the 
recall of First Lieut. J. A. Sladen, a former witness. 

First Lieut. Joseph A. Sladen, Fourteenth Infantry, aid-de-camp, 
was then recalled and examined, as follows : 

By the Court, (three papers handed witness by president of court:) 

Question. Can you identify those i)apers ? 

Answer. I recognize the one from General Howard to the Secretary 
of the Treasury, and also the other letter, with the exception of the ad- 
dress, " Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A." I am not quite sure about 
that. We had to make this from a copy which did not have that sig- 
nature. But the body of the letter I can swear to. 

Question. Do you know Captain McMillan's signature ? 

Answer. I am tolerably familiar with it. 

Question. Is that his receipt ? 

Answer. It is. 

The three papers were then read, as follows : 

Wasiiixgtox, D. C, April 14, 1874. 
Hou. ^VI^,I,I.\M A. Richardson, 

Secretary of the Treasury, Washington, D, C: ' 

SiK : In accordance with the opinion of the Second Comptroller, that it is necessary 
for uie to render an account of " any portion of the irregular fund which may remain 
3o H O 



546 

liaexpended when the Freedmeu's Bureau shall cease to exist," iu a manner satisfactory 
to yourself, the opinion being this day given, before the court of incjuiry, now in 
session, I have the honor to rec^uest that you examine the provision of the law ap- 
proved March 2, 1867, (Pub. No. 101,) and designate who shall consider and audit the 
said account or unexpended balance. The majority' of the books and papers are in the 
possession of the court of inijuiry, which may necessarily occasion some delay, yet I 
"would like to have it settled as to the place where and the persons to whom the ac- 
count shall be rendered. 

Very respectfullj-, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
BrUjaditr-GiHcral, United States Army. 

P. S. — By direction of the Hon. f?ecretai\v of War, this balance was turned over to his 
disbursing ofticer. Major Jas. McMillan, and I liold his (McMillan's) receipt for it. 
Respectfuliv, 

O. 0. IIOWAED. 

A true copv. 

M. C. WILKINSON, 

First Lieutenant, Third Infantry, Aid-de-Camp. 

Treasury Department, 
Washington, 1). C, April 20, 1874. 
Sir : In replj' to yours of the 14th instant, the Second Auditor is suggested as the 
proper Auditor to whom you should render your accounts of the irregular fund, under 
the act of March 2, lh'(i7. 

I have the honor to be, sir, verv respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

WxM. A. KICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

United Stales Army. 
Official. 

.1. A. SLADEN, 
Brevet Captain, United States Army. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 3d day of February, 1873, from Brig. Gen. O. O. 
Howard, United States Army, late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, the sum of sixteen hundred twenty-eight and tifty-niue one hun- 
dredths dollars, on account of an irregular fund known^as the " retained-bouuty fund," 
for wliich I am accountable to the Treasurer of the United States. 
11,628.59.] 

JAS. MCMILLAN, 
Captain Third Artillery, Chief Dishnrsiny Officer. 

The witness tlieu retired. 

The Judge- Advocate, Major Gardner, then proceeded to present his 
argument, as follows : 

ARGUMENT OF THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE. 

May it iileasc the Court : 

On the 3d of March, 18G5, the organic act of Congress for the estab- 
lishment of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
was approved by the Executive and became a law. The first section 
of this act established it as a Bureau iu the War Department, * * * 
under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of 
the Bureau and approved by the President. 

This act provided for the ap])oiutmeut of a Commissioner, by and 
with the advice and consent of the Senate, who, as well as all persons 
appointed under the act, had to take an oath of ofiflce, and the Com- 
missioner and chief clerk were each required to give bonds respectively 
for $50,000 and $10,000, on sureties to be approved by the Attorney-Gen- 
eral, the bonds to be "filed in the ofiice of the First Comptroller of the 
Treasury, to be by him put in suit for the benefit of any injured party 
upon a breach of the conditions thereof." 



547 

I find that, in the cases of certain Bureaus in the Navy Department, 
the President appoints the several chiefs, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, (acts 5 July, 1862, and 3 March, 1S71,) but in 
the case of the Freedraen's Bureau, of the War Department, Brigadier- 
General Howard, the accused, was detailed by Executive order. 

On June 10, 1872, [ch. 415, sec. 1, 17^/^ U. S. Stat.,) Congress, in ap- 
propriating money for the support of certain work of the Bureau, pro- 
vided for the discontinuance of the Bureau after June 30, 1872, but de- 
clared that "all acts and parts of acts pertaining to the collection and 
payment of bounties or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, 
and marines, or their heirs, shall remain in force until otherwise or- 
dered by Congress, the same to be carried into effect by the Secretary of 
lV(i>', who may employ such clerical force as may be necessary for the 
purpose." 

The act also provided that "all agents, cJerls, and other employes then 
on duty shall be discharged, except such as may be retained by the 
Secretary of War for the jnirposes of this proviso." 

lleferring to the printed Revision of the Statutes draughted by the 
Commissioners, and now before Congress, I find that they look upon the 
honorable Secretary of War as the successor to Brigadier-General How- 
aid, in that the responsibility for carrying out the work of the late Bureau 
is devolved ui)on him. [Title XXIX, vol.1. See also Second Auditor^ s 
testimony, eif/hth day\s proceedinys.) 

It is in evidence that the honorable Secretary, on June 25, 1872, [G. 
0. 55, War Dept., A. G. 0.,) and more fully on August 8, 1872, [G. 0. 
79, War Dept., A. G. 0.,) provided for the conduct, through the Ad- 
jutant General's Department of the Army, of the business thus re- 
(piiring attention, in consequence of the discontinuance of a separate 
Bureau in his Department. 

On October 7, 1872, Assistant Adjutant-General Thomas M. Vincent, 
to whom had been assigned the more immediate charge of this branch 
of the Adjutant-General's Department, made a report (Exhibit B, p. 21) 
to the Adjutant-General of the Army on the condition of affairs of 
the Freedmen's Bureau. 

This report, as has been shown here, was called for by the House of 
Representatives on motion of honorable Fernando Wood, of Xew York, 
Dec. 3, 1872, and transmitted by the honorable Secretary of War, with ac- 
companying papers in answer to the resolution, on January 11, 1873. 

As the honorable Secretary has said, in his letter of transmittal, (Exhibit 
B, p. 20,) "that as the report was submitted for the advice and guid- 
ance of the Department, action as to certain points has necessarily been 
based upon it." It was not, therefore, a report prepared for publica- 
tion. 

Major Vincent has declared here that he had no communication, directly 
or indirectly, with the Representative from New York — on whose motion 
the report was called for ; the effect, however, of the resolution was to 
bring the matter into Congress for such action or investigation as 
might there be deemed desirable, instead of remaining with the head of 
the War Department. 

On December 4, 1873, the honorable Secretary addressed the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives at its next session, in which body 
the resolution just mentioned had originated, saying, that " in the 
course of business connected with the settlement of affairs, and paying 
unsettled claims of the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, certain developments have been made, which " he deemed 
"proper, under the circumstances^ to s-'-bmit to the House of Represeuta- 



548 

tives lor such action as may appear to be ri^bt;" and fiirtber along be 
invited attention to bis previous communication called fortb in response 
to tbe House resolution. 

Tbis was followed, a montb later, (January 5, 1874,) by a furtber re- 
port of tbe Secretary for tbe information of tbe House of Kepreseuta- 
tives of certain additional developments. As tbe Secretary, by law^ 
represents tbe President, so far as tbe Department of War is concerned^ 
it IS i)resumable, and I bave no doubt true, tbat be actually consulted 
tbe Executive before making tbese communications. Tbe alleged 
" cbarges," wbicb form tbe basis of the fvll investigation tbis bonorable 
court is required to make under tbe act of February 13, 1874, are con- 
tained, not only in tbese communications of tbe Secretary of War, 
hut in the annexed documents suhinitt^d by him to the House of Representa- 
tives at same time. 

( Vide, order and decision of the court j second day's proceedings.) 

Tbese, witb General Howard's answer, occupy sixty printed pages. 
{Exhibit B.) 

As tbat distinguisbed ofticer, in bis final statement, here bas alluded 
to certain officers by name, I bave to invite tbe attention of tbe court 
to tbe fact tbat in tbe progress of all tbe investigations made as to Bu- 
reau affairs by officers and clerks in tbe Adjutant-General's Department, 
there is not one particJe of evidence before this court to show that any official 
has gone outside of his regular duties to seel: accusations against him, or 
been actuated by any other motive than the conscientious performance oj 
duty. 

On tbe contrary, tbe Adjutant-General's Department appears to bave 
tried to free itself from conducting tbe examination, and to tbrow it 
upon tbe Treasury Department. 

Wbetber, in view of tbe fact tbat tbe House of Eepresentatives bad 
but recently investigated Freedmen's Bureau affairs, it would bave been 
sbowing proper courtesy to a legislative brancb of tbe Government for 
tbe Secretary to bave instituted a judicial inquiry after tbe House bad, 
on Decembers, 1872, preliminarily called for tbe report, is not for me to 
determine, neitber does it seem to come witbin tbe i)urview of inquiry 
before tbis court. 

As tbe Secretary of War says in bis letter of December 4, 1873 : 

From the incomplete and disordered condition of the records of the late Bureau, when 
received by the Adjutant-General, and from the fact that examination had also to be made 
in two offices of the Treasury Department, to arrive at the true condition of certain accounts 
and claims, so much time elapsed that the trial of the late Commissioner, by general court- 
martial, became barred, in part under the statute of limitation, htfore it icus discovered that 
he was probably amenable to trial at all. 

One tbing is, bowever, plain, and tbat is tbat tbe honorable Secretary's 
communications were purely official communications in tbe transaction 
' official business imjiosed on bim* by statutes. {Act of June 10, 1872, 
ante.) 

Tbe statement of General Howard, tbat be bad no desire to avail 
bimself of tbe statute of limitations and bis otter to waive it, is met by 
tbe reply tbat tbe limitation, as well known, being absolute, cannot be 
M'aived by an accused, and sucb bas always been tbe rule. 

{See 1 Opinions Attorneys- General, 384; b ibid., 239.) 

I now come to tbe consideration of the " cbarges " themselves. 

They may be divided into several categories : 

First. The subject of payments and accounting under tbe resolution 
of March 29, 18G7, relative to bounties for colored soldiers, and acts re- 
sulting tberefrom. 



549 

Second. With reference to the supposed irregular advance of 
$1,331.03. 

Third. The irregular retaiued-bounty fund. 

Fourth. The dettcit and overstated balances. 

Fifth. Filing vouchers in one month and then claiming credit, when 
])avment of expenses incurred had been made in a previous month, 
$73,048.40. 

Sixth. Misapplication of 836,314.77. 

Seventh. Confusion and unreliability of records. 

Eighth. Investments of $250,000 public funds in Government bonds 
and failing to account for and deposit the interest received. 

Ninth. Investment of $300,000 public funds in Government bonds 
and misapplying the interest received. 

The following may be considered as a general brief of charges col- 
lated from Executive Document No. 10, House of liepresentatives, 
{Exhibit B,) before this court by which I have been guided in presenting 
testimony : 

FIRST. 

I. That Brifradici-General O. O. Ilowanl, United States Armj', Commissioner of the 
Freednien's Bureau, beiS*^, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, "held 
responsible for tlie safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * intrusted 
to him," by that resolution, for the payment " of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or 
other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did 
fail to establish and enforce a proper system of regulations to control the payments ; thus 
leading to frauds on claimants, and allegations by claimants that they had not been paid 
their dues, in the sum of )5i33,888.39. This to the loss of claimants and the United States, 
and involving violations of acts of Congress. — (See Exhibit B, pages 1, 2, 3 to 7, 8, 15, 22, 
32, 45, 55.) 

II. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, "held 
responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * intrusted 
to him," by that resolution, for the payment "of claims for pay, prize-money, or other 
moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did 
fail to establish and enforce a proper system of regulations to coutrol the payments ; thus 
leading to false records in the Freedman's Bureau, and to the tiling, with the Second 
Auditor of the Treasury, of vouchers to cover payments in the sum of $37,919. 04, more or 
less, when, in fact, said payments had not been made; thus placing at hazard the funds ot 
the United States due to claimants, and involving violations of acts of Congress. — (Pages 
11,22, 28, 29, 30, 44, .55.) 

III. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Freedman's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, 
" held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * in- 
trusted to him," by that resolution, for the payment "of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, 
or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," 
did, in transferring " the records * * Treasury certificates " * or amounts re- 
ceived therefrom," as directed by War Department General Orders No. 55, of .June 25, 
1872, fail to transfer funds, in the sum of $3,7.54.69, more or less, to meet unsettled claims 
of colored claimants — the said deficit being the difference between the amount of un- 
settled claiais and the amount of funds transferred to meet them ; and did, at the date of 
transfer, fail to report or name said deficit ; thus involving violations of law and orders. — 
(Pages 1 1 , 22, 30, 3 1 , 32, 44, 45. 46, 49. ) 

IV. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, " held 
responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds *" * intrusted 
to him," by that resolution, tor the payment "of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or 
other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," 
did fail in transferring " the records * * funds, papers," &c., as directed by War 
Department General Orders No. 55, of June 25, 1872, to transfer funds in the sum of $2,867,^ 
to meet certain "retained tees" (so called) due to certain attorneys; did, at the date of 
transfer, fail to report or name that the said fees had been kept back or held " in trust," or 
that vouchers, including the amount of said fees, had been signed by colored claimants and 
tiled with the Second Auditor of the Treasury, and did fail to supply to the records as trans- 
ferred a certain record-book relative to the subject of said retained fees ; thus involving 
violations of law and orders. — (Pages 21 , 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37.) 

V. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, " held 



550 

responsible for the safe custody and taitbful disbursement of tbe funds * * intrusted 
to liim," by that resolution, for the payment "of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or 
other moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did 
neglect to take requisite precautions to secure the United States from loss by his disburse- 
ments of $8,503.29 of said funds, and did fail to establish and enforce a proper system of 
regulations to control the payments ; thus involving a defalcation on the part of one St. 
Clair Mandeville, a civilian agent of the Freedmen's l^iireau, in the sum of .$8,503. 29, where- 
by certain claimants were defrauded, to their loss and that of the United States. This in- 
volving a violation of an act of Congress. — (Pages 2, 8, 16.) 

VI. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, be- 
ing, under a resolution of Congress api)roved March 29, 1867, " held responsible for the 
safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * intrusted to him, " by that reso- 
lution, for tiie payment " of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to 
colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did neglect to take re- 
quisite precautions to secure the United States from loss by his disbursements of $6,841.54 
of said funds, and did fail to establish and enforce a proper system of regulations to control 
the payments ; thus involving a defalcation on the part of O. C. French, a civilian agent of 
the Freedmen's Bureau, in the said sum of $6,841.54, whereby certain claimants were de- 
frauded, to their loss and that of the United States. This involving a violation of an act 
of Congress.— (Pages 2, 8, 16, 29.) 

VII. That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, ]867, " held responsible for the 
safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * intrusted to him," by that act, 
for the payment "of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due colored sol- 
diers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did fail to establish and enforce a 
proper system of regulations to regulate the payments, or to be governed by the same rules 
and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army ; thus involving a defalca- 
tion on the part of B. P. Kunkle, then a major. United States Army, and detailed in the 
Freedmen's Bureau, in the sum of $()73.24, whereby certain claimants were defrauded, to 
their loss and that of the United States. This involving a violation of an act of Congress. — 
(Pages 2, 8, J6, 41. ) 

.SECOND. 

That Brigadier-General 0. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the Freed- 
men's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, "held 
responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds * * intrusted to 
him," by that resolution, for the payment "of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other 
moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives," did fail to 
establish and enforce a proper system of regulations to regulate the payments, or to take 
requisite precautions to secure the United States from loss by his disbursement of .said funds ; 
thus leadmg, on the part of George W. Balloch, employed by him as a chief disbursing, 
officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, to irregular advances of money of the United States; to 
the irregular drawing of funds from the Treasury of the United States, aud to the misap- 
plication of funds of the United States. All involving violations of acts of Congress, and 
loss to the United States in the sum of $1,331.03.— (Pages 2, 8, 16, .54.) 

THIRD. 

That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen aud Abandoned Lands, being, by an act of Congress ap- 
proved March 2, 1867, entitled " An act to regulate the disposition of an irregular fund 
iu the custody of the Freedmen's Bureau," and thereby "constituted the lawful custodian 
of said retaiued-bounty fund, and appointed trustee of the same, for the benefit of said col- 
ored soldiers, or their lawful representatives," did fail to establish and enforce regulations 
necessary to a perfect and full accountability of the said fund, with increase, amounting to 
$121,000, more or less, and did fail to render the accounts aud vouchers relating to the 
said fund when directed to do so by the Secretary of War ; to state the total amount of the 
said fund received ; to state the amount of increase through United States bonds, or other- 
wise ; to give the distribution, if any, for the "exclusive benefit of the said colored soldiers, 
or their legal representatives," as referred to in the act of Congress regulating tbe fund, or 
to state the total amount paid out. All his to the loss of the soldiers, or their legal repre- 
sentatives, aud involving violations o: a ts of Congress. — (Pages 2, 9, 10, 19,21, 54, 57). 

FOURTH, 

Ex. Doc. 10-2.— That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, being, under a resolution of Congress approved 
March 29, 1867, " held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the 
funds * * * intrusted to him," by that resolution, " for tbe payment of claims for pay,, 
bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their 
legal repre.senfatives," did, through George W. Balloch, employed by him as a chief dis- 
bursing officer, file with the accounting officer of the United States Treasury accounts 
duly certified, as to funds of the United States, in various sums from .$9,000 to .$800,000, 



551 

being on deposit with the United Stat?s Treasurer, when said funds ^^(■le not so depcs 
ited. This involving vialationsof acts of Congress. — (Ex. B, part 2, pages 1 to 9.) 

FIFTH. 

That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the Freed- 
men's Bureau, did sanction and approve, in January, February, March, May, June, 
and July, 1871, the misapplication of money held for the payment of claims of colored sol- 
diers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives, in the sum of $73,048.40 ; thus lead- 
ing to the filing of vouchers, covering time subsequent to the actual date of payment, -with 
the Third Auditor, and the rendition of false accounts to the Second Auditor. This involv- 
ing violations of acts of Congress.— (Pages 2, 3, 10, 1 1 , 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 40, 53, 54. ) 

SIXTH. 

That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, did sanction and approve the misapplication of funds of the United 
States, in the sum of !j;36,314.77, by authorizing the appropriations " for the collection and 
payment of bounty, prize-money, and other legitimate claims of colored soldiers and sailors," 
and " for support of Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum at Washington, 1). C. " for the fiscal 
year ending June 3U, 1872, to be used for schools and asylums, and various other purposes ; 
thus, in the Freedmen's Bureau, leading to confusion of records, their defective condition, 
and the almost entire suspension of work, to the detriment of the public interest and that of 
colored claimants. This involving violations of acts of Congress. — (Pages 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 
13,14, 15, 19,20, 40, .53, 54.) » 

SEVENTH. 

Eecurds. — That General 0. 0. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in transferring the records, 
papers, &c., of the said Bureau, as directed by War Department General Orders No. 55, 
of June 25, 1872, did transfer certain of said records in a confused and incomplete or de- 
fective condition ; did fail to transfer certain records, and did, at the date or dates of said 
transfer, fail to report or name the defective or missing records. This to the prejudice of 
the public interest.— (Pages 1, 2, 12, 13, 21, 22. (G. O. 55,) 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 42, 45, 48, 49, 
SO, 51, 52, 53, .54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60. ) 

EIGHTH. 

That Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
did, without authority of law, order, approve, and sanction the conversion of funds in- 
trusted to him by a resolution of Congress approved March 29, 1867, and thereby directed 
to " be held and disbursed luider tiie same rules and regulations gove>-ning other disbursing 
ofticers of the Army," into bonds costing $250,000, and did order, approve, and sanction the 
misapplication and misuse of the interest accruing thereon, in the sum of $12,559.31, more 
or less. This to the loss of the United States, and involving violations of acts of Congress 
and orders of the Secretary of the Treasury.— (Pages 2, 8, 9, 16, 17, 18, 19. Ex. B, part 2, 
pages 2, 7, 9.) 

NINTH. 

Ex. Doc. 10-2. — That Brigadier-General O. 0. Howard, United States Army, Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, did, without authority of law, order, approve, and 
sanction the conversion of funds, placed under his authority by a resolution of Congress 
approved March 29, 1867, and thereby directed to be " held and disbursed under the same 
rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army, into bonds costing 
$334,875, and did order, approve, and sanction the misapplication and misuse of the in- 
terest accruing on the said bonds, in the sum of $19,446.57 ; thus leading to loss by the 
United States. And the said Commissioner, as aforesaid, after having approved and sanc- 
tioned the said illegal conversion of funds into bonds, as aforesaid, did, at a date long sub- 
sequent to that on which correct and just accounts should have been rendered, file, or au- 
thorize to be filed, false and fraudulent accounts covering the accrued interest on the said 
bonds, in the sum of $19, 446.-57. This to the prejudice of the public interest, and involving 
violations of acts of Congress. — (Ex. B, part 2, pages 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.) 

FIRST. 

As to the collectioQ and payment of bounties due colored soldiers, 
sailors, and marines, or their heirs : 

On March 29, 1807, Cong'ress passed a resolution on this subject. 

This resolution, with an exception not material to this discussion, 
was submitted to Congress with the full knowledge and consent of Gen- 
eral Howard, as appears from Second Auditor French's testimony. 
{Eighth day's 2)>'ocee(l'tiigs.) 



• 552 

Previously tolored soldiers were paid their boimties direct from the 
Second Auditor's Otlfice. 

The resolution was as follows : 

Rcsolrcd by the Senate and House of Rrpresentatires of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That all checks aud Treasury certificates to be issued iu the settlement 
of claims tor pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored solders, sailors, or 
marines, or their legal representatives, now residing^, or who may have resided, in any State 
in which slavery existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, the claim for which has 
been or may be prosecnted by an agent or attorney, shall be made payable to the Commis- 
sioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the said agent or attorney his lawful fees 
and expenses, and shall hold the balance subject to the order of the claimants on satisfac- 
tory identification ; but no money shall be paid to any person except the claimant or his or 
her legal representatives, if deceased ; nor shall any power of attorney, transfer, or assign- 
ment ot the amount of said claims, or any part thereof, be recognized or allowed by the 
Commissioner or by any officer or agent acting under him ; and it shall be the duty of the 
said Commissioner, the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, to facilitate as far as 
possible the discovery, identification, and payment of the claimants. 

Sec. '2. And be it further resolved, That the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau shall 
be held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds hereby in- 
trusted to him. In settling with the attorney or agent of the claimant strict compliance 
■with the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of a joint resolution approved June 
twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred aud sixty-six, entitled "Joint resolution amendatory of a 
joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers, and the pensions, bounties, and "allow- 
ances to their heirs," approved June lifteen, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, will in every 
case be required and enforced ; and if any attorne}' or agent shall, in addition to notarial 
seals and expenses of collecting such claim, demand repayment for money loaned or ad- 
vanced to any claimant, he shall be required to make oath to the date and amount of such 
loan or advance, or payment of the fees and expenses shall be withheld ; and when the 
claimau* shall have been properly identified, and his account is ready for settlement, the 
balance due shall be paid in current funds, and not in checks or drafts. 

Se(". 3. And be it further resolved, That all money held or disbursed under the provisions 
of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same rules and regulations govern- 
ing other disbursing officers of the Army. 

At the time of the passage of this resolution the Bureau was in full 
operation in the Southern States, and the following law was in force, 
{act of July 10, 1S6G, 14 U. IS. KStat, p. 174): 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That officers of the Veteran Reserve Corps or of th3 
volunteer service, now on duty in the Freedmen's Bureau as assistant commissioners, 
agents, medical officers, or in otlier capacities, whose regiments or corps have been or may 
hereafter be mustered out of service, may be retained upon such duty as officers of said Bureau 
with the same compensation as is now provided by law for their respective grades ; and the 
Secretary of War shall have power to till vacancies until other officers can be detailed in 
their places without detriment to the public service. 

The act of July 10, 1800, was followed by the act of July 0, 1868, 
section 4 of which was as follows, (15 U. IS. IStat., jj. 83): 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That officers of the Veteran Reserve Corps, or of the 
volunteer service, now on duty in the Freedmen's Bureau as assistant commissioners, agents, 
medical officers, or iu other capacities, who have been or may be mustered out of service, 
may be retained by the Commissioner when the same shall be requiied for the proper execu- 
tion of the laws, as officers of the Bureau, upon such duty aud with the same pay, campen- 
sation, and all allowances from the date of their appointment, as now provided by law for 
their respective grades and duties at the dates of their muster-out and discharge ; and such 
officers so retained shall have, respectively, the same authority and jurisdiction as now con- 
ferred upon officers of the Bureau by act of Congress passed on the sixteenth of July, in the 
year eighteen hundred and sixty-six. 

With reference to these last-mentioned acts it is to be noticed that 
the act of 1808 supplied and took the place of the act of 1806, being- 
fuller aud more comprehensive, aud it gave to the Commi.ssiono' sole 
l)Ower to retain any officer who had been mustered out, for the proper 
executiou of the laws, and declaring that such Bureau officers so re- 
tained shall have the same authority and jurisdiction as conferred by 
the act of 1860 hifore the payment of colored bounties had been im- 
posed on the Commissioner. 

An element to be considered with reference to General Howard's 
measure of responsibility is that the retention of all volunteer and ex- 



553 

Aolunteer officers as his ageuts rested, by the before -recited act. in bis 
discretion. 

{XII Ojiinions Aftornei/s- General, p. 493.) 

{See Balloch's retention, Exhibit C\ after muster-out.) 

{See Broicn's retention, Exhibit U, after muster-out.) 

{See Balloch's testimony, tenth day's proceedings.) 

The resolution of March 29, 18(>7, declared (section 1) that all checks 
and Treasury certificates issued for the purposes mentioned shall be pay- 
able to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and that no power 
of attorney, &C., shall be recognized or allowed by the Commissioner, or 
by any officer or ae/ent acting under him. 

The resolution made it the duty of the said Commissioner, the officers 
and ageuts of the Bureau, '■'to facilitate as far as possible the discovery, 
identification, and payment of the claimants." 

To facilitate a payment does not necessarily include the idea of actually 
7na\ing a payment, foi a payment may be facilitated by an agent bring- 
ing the payee to the payor. 

Looking at the resolution, however, in a liberal sense, it woidd seem 
as if the Commissioner was expected to have agentsor deputies to assist 
him in his duties, such as to mal'e ]>ayments in remote localities, very 
much as a sheriff has to have deputies to assist in the performance of 
his duties. 

The 2d section declared that the Commissioner shall he held responsible 
for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds thereby in- 
trusted to him, and by section 3 all money held or disbursed under the 
provisions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same 
rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army. 

The question therefore arises as to what is the measure or degree of 
responsibility of General Howard under this joint resolution. 

The honorable Attorney-General, (Williams,) in his opinion of July 3, 
1873, to the honorable Secretary of AVar, says, {Exhibit B, p. G :) 

TLe Comniissioner of the Freeclmen's Bureau therefore is liable for all losses sustained by 
the Government through the default of a subordinate disbursing officer or other persons 
employed by him in the disbursement of the moneys intrusted to him under the joint reso- 
lution of 1867. 

Second Comptroller Brodhead, when asked the following question: 

Were you called upon to decide under that act (March 29, 1867) as to who was to be 
lield accountable or responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of public 
funds appropriated for the Freedmen's Bureau ? 

Eeplied : 

Xo, sir; I think the act itself defines that. The second section. I think, makes the Com- 
missioner the custodian — makes him responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement. 

This fell within the Second Comptrollers proper duties, and jj>-o tanto 
his opinion may be treated with consideration. 
To the question : 

How did you officially construe the words, "officers or agents acting under him," men- 
tioned in the act ? Did you consider these disbursing officers and agents as administrative 
or executive functionaries, and as pecuniarily responsible to the Government or to the 
Commissioner ? 

He replied : 

They were not recognized at the Treasury in any capacity. They were merely the ageuts 
of the Commissioner, except General Balloch and Major Brown, who were appointed by the 
Secretary of War. 

This testimony is corroborated by Second Auditor French, {eighth day's 
proceedings.) who says: 

The law appeared to hold General Howard responsible for the safe custody of the funds. 

It is in evidence, and not contradicted, that all checks from the Pay- 
master-General were drawn in the name of General Howard ; that he 



554 

applied, December 2, 18G7, to the Second Comptroller of tlie Treasury 
for permission for his chief disbursing oflficer, George W. Balloch. then 
brevet brigadier-general United States Volunteers, to sign, for and in his 
name, all Treasury certificates, checks, and so forth, issued under that 
resolution. {See ExMbit 8 and Exhibit 0.) Tbe accused has stated on 
the record {eighth daifs proceedings) that this was in consequence of his 
having lost an arm in battle. The Second Comptroller gave the author- 
ity asked for George W. Balloch to always sign '■'■for the Commissioner.^'' 
{See Second, Comptroller'' s testimony^ seventh day\s proceedings. See Second 
Auditors testimony, eighth day^s proceedings.) It seems evident that the 
Commissioner was aware of his responsibility uuder that act of 1867 ; for 
Balloch, in his testimony, when asked the question whether he knew any 
reason other than facility in the settlement of the accounts at the Treas- 
ury, why the abstracts were approved by General Howard, said: 

It would seem to be, under the interpretation of the law, that the Commissioner was to 
be lield responsible ; and, as I represented him, that was an additional reason why the 
vouchers were made in my name. 

Balloch, who was a commissary of subsistence of volunteers, had, at 
General Howard's request, been assigned to duty with him as inspector 
of subsistence, and was afterward specifically designated by the former, 
on his own responsibility, to perform temporarily the duties of chief ac- 
counting and disbursing officer of the Bureau. {Exhibit A''.) 

He says he never gave a bond for the faithful performance of his duty as a 
disbursing officer under General Howard. ( Twenty-first day'' s proceedings.) 

At a later period, when J. M. Brown, then assistant quartermaster 
and brevet miijor United States Volunteers, was designated as disburs- 
ing officer by General Howard, he was not recognized as such at the 
Treasury Department until he I'eceived authority from General Howard 
to sign for him. {See Exhibits G^, et seq.) 

That authority, on General Howard's api)lication, {Exhibit V^,) was 
given him by the Secretary of AVar, {Exhibit 0\) with the distinct pro- 
^'iso that he (Howard) was ^'- still to beheld responsible for the proper dis- 
bursement of all public moneys that pass through his (Brown's) hands as 
sub-agent." 

The power of attorney is in Exhibit E^. 

The Commissioner, on relieving Balloch of duty as disl)ursing officer 
October 11, 1871, assumed its entire performance himself. (Exhibit G'.) 

As in the letter relieving Balloch, the Commissioner took occasion to 
compliment the former, among other things, on his fidelity of purpose 
in the disbursement of pul)lic funds, it is but reasonable to suppose that 
he approved Balloch's conduct. 

It appears from the evidence that many of the claims of colored sol- 
diers or their heirs for bounties were received either from them or their 
attorneys, direct or through the agents of the Bureau throughout the 
South, and transmitted through the office of the Commissioner in this 
cit}' to the Second Auditor's Uttice. Others went to the Second Auditor 
direct from attorneys ; that the Second Auditor then passed upon the 
claims to ascertain whether they were proper claims or not, and whether 
the bounties were legally due. Having been passed upon and approved 
by the Second Auditor and confirmed by the Second Comptroller, the 
claim then became, in the technical language of the Treasury Depart- 
ment, "settled," and was sent to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau for payment under the resolution of March 29, 1SG7. The Com- 
missioner of the Bureau, through his agent, the chief disbursing officer, 
acting under a power of attorney from him, would take these claims to 
the paymaster who had the funds for the purpose of paying them, and 
would receipt to the paymaster for the sum mentioned in each particu- 



555 

lar settled account, {see Exhibit R,) the receipt in each i:)articular claim 
being specifically by the chief disbursing officer "/or General Hoivard.'^ 

The money having been received by a check, from the paymaster, on 
the Treasury of the United States, would generally be deposited by the 
agent of the Commissioner, the chief disbursing officer, in the Treasury, 
and subsequently drawn against the same as any other disbursing 
transaction of a disbursing officer. Meanwhile, however, in most in- 
stances, as will appear from the evidence, more particularly in the tes- 
timony of Balloch, {Tenth day,) vouchers would be sent from the Com- 
missioner's Office to the agents of the Bureau nearest the residence of 
the bounty-claimants. The agents would get them signed and send 
them back, the signature which was obtained being a receipt in usual 
form by the bounty-claimant, and witnessed, for the money, in advance 
of and before payment was actually made, these receipts being put on 
file in the Commissioner's chief disbursing officer's office before he actuallt/ 
sent the funds to maJce the payment. So soon as he drew a check to make 
such bounty payment he would take these receipted vouchers, and at 
the end of the month file them with his accounts in the Treasury, on 
abstracts examined and approved by the Commissioner, these abstracts 
accompanying the vouchers and full^' describing them. This mode of 
doing business was commenced about the \S)th of April, 1867, with the 
very first payments that tcere made after the passage of the joint resolution 
of Congress, and icith the specific approval of the Commissioner. {BallocWs 
testimony, tenth day\s proceedings.) Oat of this mode of transacting 
this business grew the difficulties which culminated in the allegations 
on this subject now under investigation. 

So long as the Commissioner kept the subject of payments to bounty- 
claimants directly under his control, and the vouchers for alleged pay- 
ments had no validity without his sanction and approval, he would be 
responsible for any negligence on his part, in consequence of which 
claimants would be defrauded of their just dues, or incorrect and false 
returns rendered to the Treasury. 

I. 

I now invite attention to the first allegation as to the cases of the 
one hundred and seventy-four colored claimants who allege that they 
have not been paid their pay and bounty-money, although the records 
of the Treasury Department show settlement of their claims, and vouch- 
ers have been filed by the late Bureau as evidence of payment. Total 
amount claimed, 133,888.39. 

The initial of this matter will be found on ]>ages 338 and 330 of the 
printed evidence, from which it is established that Assistant Adjutant- 
General Vincent held that the Adjatant-Geueral's Office was in no wise 
responsible for payments made, or alleged to have been made, by the 
late Bureau, and that it could not take cognizance of claims which the 
records of the late Bureau indicated as paid. 

"■Further action'''' relative to them was left with the Second Auditor, 
and it was the action of the latter that subsequently caused the Adjutant- 
Ceneral's Office to be connected with them. The Auditor's letter of 
April 10, 1873, to the Adjutant-General led to action, conjointly, be- 
tween the War and Treasury Departments, through the Department of 
Justice. 

One hundred of these claims have assumed definite form, showing- 
evidence of non-payment, and have been transmitted by the Treasury 
Department to the Department of Justice for prosecution. 

The court decided not to take testimony, or go into an examination^ 
to ascertain whether or not the complaints in these 174 cases of non-pay- 



556 

mont were true. One case, however — that of Harriet A. Walker, widow 
of Pius D. Walker, alias Pius Dominick, late private of Company C, 
Fifth Colored Cavalry — for 1337.33, has been shown to be a valid ciaini 
by the records of the Bureau. This claim, as appears in evidence, was 
allowed by the Second Auditor by certificate Xo. 585,513. It was 
alleged to be i)aid January 27, 1872, through the agent of the Bu- 
reau at Louisville, Ky. At that date the Commissioner himself was 
making his disbursements. Under the practice established and ap- 
jn'oved by him he received from the agent the receipt of Harriet A. 
Walker tor this sum of 8337.33, and filed it with his accounts in the 
Treasury, (which was substantiated when the original vouchers were 
brought here l)y Mr. Sims, of the Second Auditor's Office,) claiming 
credit for the expenditure of that sum, when in fact the money had not 
left the hands of the agent at Louisville, and was actually borne on his 
monthly returns to the Commissioner as money still due that claimant. 
Shortly afterward the Commissioner having taken Major Brown to as- 
sist him in the disbursement of these funds, the latter recalled this 
money, with other moneys, from the hands of the agent at Louisville, 
and, as a consequence, although a voucher was on tile in the Treasury 
in the accounts of General Howard., the Com mi,ss loner, claiming credit for 
the expenditure of that money, the money has never actuaUy been expended. 
(Mr. Moody^s testimony, twenty ninth day'^s proceedings.) 

This brings up the question of the Commissioner's direct responsibil- 
ity in consequence of the manner in whic'i Major Brown was designated 
to perform disbnrsing duties. 

As I have already stated. Major Brown was called upon to perform 
those duties on the distinct understanding, on the part of the Commis- 
sioner, that he (the Commissioner) was " still to be held responsible for 
the proper disbursement of all public moneys that should pass through 
Major Brown's hands." 

Major Brown has come before this court, and sworn that he directed 
the recall of 85,000 from the hands of the agent at Louisville, and the 
Bureau records show that such money was returned. 

Under such circumstances can it be proi)erly said that the Commis- 
sioner was in no measure responsible for the non-payment of this sum f 
Was it not his duty to ascertain whether, in point of fact, the claimant 
bad actually been paid or not before he undertook to claim credit at the 
Treasury for the alleged payment ? Can it be properly said that his en- 
tire responsibility ceased the moment he had drawn his check and sent 
it to the agent at Louisville ' What i>rotection would the claimant or 
the Government have from frauds it business in a supposed well-con- 
ducted office of the Government was carried on in this manner '? 

In fact, the Commissioner had, as early as July 10, 1868, issued a cir- 
cular, No. 5, (i:/',<7//^tYA'\) in which he published, for the information and 
guidance of officers and agents of the Bureau, the opinion of the then 
Third Auditor (Atkinson) on this subject, ot date June 17, 1801, in 
which the Auditor said : 

It is believed that a practice has obtaiued amonp; disbursing^ officers of the Army, espec- 
ially in cases where their employes are numbered by thousands, and the duty of paying 
them off is one of very considerable magnitude, to thus prepaie their rolls in advance, per- 
fecting them before payment, to all appearances, as fully as it could be done if the receipts 
were affixed at the proper time, that is, the time of payment, and by the proper parties. 

This practice is clearly wrong, and might lead not only to innocent mistalies, but also to 
extensive frauds upon the Government. v 

It is absolutely necessary, I know, where many payments are to be made, that the rolls 
should be prepared in advance ; but such preparation ought to extend no further than enter- 
ing the dates, numbers, occupation, period of service, rate of pay, stoppages, if any, and 
amount due, leaving the signer's names, and the marks [-+-] and names of witnesses, where 



557 

necessary, to be affixed at the time and place of payment, bearing in mind always that if a 
person can write his name he must write it, and not affix his mark. 

The resolution of March 29, 18G7, under which these pajments de- 
volved upon the Commissioner, declares that he shall be j;overned by 
the same rules and regulations as govern other disbursing officers of 
the Army. 

Those rules and regulations are to be found in the e^xistiug Army 
regulations, ArticleXLI, under the title of " Public property, money and 
accounts." 

It is hardly necessary to inform this court that by the 37th section of 
the act of Congress approved July 28, 1866, those Army regulations were 
made law, " to remain in force until othertvise ordered by Congress,''^ or that 
the Attorney-General of the United States {^Solicitor-General and Acting 
Attorney -General Bristoic, January 22, 1872) had decided that such regu- 
lations were law with reference to persons in the military service; that 
they are considered by Congress to be as much statute law with refer- 
ence to the Army as the general statutes is apparent from the second 
section of the act of March 3, 1873, by which Congress modified the ex- 
isting reguhition. 

Reference to those regulations, on page 147, section J>91, shows this 
well-known paragraph : 

No disbursing officer shall accept, or receive or transmit to the Treasury to he allowed in 
his favor, any receipt or voucher from a creditor of the United States without having paid to 
such creditor, in such funds as he receieed for disbursement , or such other funds as he is author- 
ized by the preceding article to take in exchange, the full amount specified in such receipt or 
voucher; and every such act shall be deemed to be a conversion to his oicn use of the amount 
specified in such receipt or voucher. And no officer in the military service charged loith the 
safe-keeping, transfer, or disbursement of public money, shall convert to his own use, or invest 
in any kind of merckandise or property, or loan with or without interest, or deposit m any bank, 
or exchange for other funds, except as ailoived in the preceding article, any public money in- 
trusted to him ; and every such act shall be deemed to be a felony and an embezzlement of so 
much money as may be so taken, converted, invested, used, loaned, deposited, or exchanged.— ■ 
{Act August G, 184G.) 

This i»aragrnph is followed by another, (paragraph 997,) which has 
been reproduced in the Army regulations for the last forty years, and is 
as follows : 

All officers are forbid to give or take any receipt in blank for public money or property ; but 
in all cases the voucher shall be made out in full, and the true date, place, and exact amount 
of money, in words, shall he written out in the receipt before it is signed. 

The Commissioner, in his report to the Hon. Secretary of War, for 
1865, [Exhibit M",) said: 

This Bureau bciuo; in the War Department, all rules and regulations governing officers 
under accouutability for property, apply, as set forth in the Revised Regulations of the 
Army. 

He appears to have given no others. ]>ut it is intimated that in the 
ordinary routine of public business it is the constant practice of pay- 
masters, for example, to take receipts in advance of payment. 

To this I reply that if there is such a custom extant it cannot in any 
sense vary the law. 

It is a rule of commercial law that no one is bound to give a receipt 
for money due until after payment of the money. 

These colored soldiers, to whom Congress awarded this bounty, were, 
measurably, the wards of the Government. 

The admitted object of the Bureau was to protect them and secure 
to them their just dues and their rights. 

When an agent required them to giv^e a receipt in advance of actual 
payment, as the agent was the representative of the Government, so 



558 

far as the claiiiiaiit was concerned, no difficulty appears to have been 
experieuc(;d in obtaining such receipts. 

When, however, the claimant did not get his money, and made ap- 
plication to the Second Auditor of the Treasury for it, he was informed 
that the account had been settled ; that a voucher had been filed from 
him, the claimant, acknowledging the receipt of the money; and the 
Second Auditor then decided that the onus pyohaiuU rested on the 
claimant to show that he had not received his money, rather than on 
the Government to show that it had paid him. 

In other words, in consequence of the practice initiated and approved 
by the Commissioner, of taking receipts in advance, in the language of 
Auditor Atkinson, " it opened the door to fraud upon the Government," 
and the claimant, although he had followed the direction of an agent of 
the Government, was, under the decision of the Second Auditor, com- 
pelled to prove a negative. {Second Ani1itor''s testimony, nitietcenth day's 
2))'oceedings.) 

As bearing upon this subject I invite attention to a portion of the 
sixteenth section of the act approved August 6, 184(3, (9 Statutes, page 
03,) which says : 

If any officer charged with the disbursement of public moneys shall accept or receive or 
transmit to the Treasury Depaitment, to be allowed in his favor, any receipt or voucher from 
a creditor of the United States, without having paid to such creditor, in such funds as the 
said officer may have received for disbursement, or such other funds as he may be authorized 
by this act to take in exchange, the full amount specified in such receipt or voucher, every 
such act shall be deemed to be a conversion by such officer to his own use of the amount 
specified in such receipt or voucher ; and any officer or agent of the United .States, and all 
persons advising or participating in such act, being convicted thereof before any court of the 
United States of competent jurisdiction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not 
less than six months nor more than ten years, and to a fine equal to the amount of the 
money embezzled. 

It is needless to argue that this practice of taking receipts in advance, 
as shown in evidence, was directly contrary to law. 

The statutes quoted are so plain upon the subject, and so explicit, that 
I leave this question to the consideration of the court as to whether or 
not the Commissioner has violated the law. 

It appears in evidence that the agents of the Bureau were required 
by the Commissioner to make reports or returns to him at the end of 
each month of the several claims remaining on hand unpaid, and of the 
several claims which had been paid. 

Although this species of necessary report does not seem to have been 
required bj" the Commissioner before July, 1871, nevertheless such reports 
were required at the time the Commissioner claimed credit for the sum 
of $337.33 expenditure, and he could undoubtedly have satisfied himself 
that the money had not been as yet paid. {Tirenty-ninth day^s proceed- 
ings.) 

Was it his duty to do it ? 

Can lie say here that he was not responsible in this matter % 

Would not the maxim apply, nullus commodum eapere potest de sua 
injuria propria f 

If the Army regulations and the statute just quoted of 1846 did not 
actually apply, would not the law^ on the subject of negligence be ap- 
plicable ? 

I invite your attention to that subject. 

In the New York court of appeals it was laid down as a rule [Tona- 
icanda R. li. Co. v. Munger, 5 Dcnio, 255, 207) that " negligence is a vio- 
lation of an obligation which enjoins care and caution in what we do." 

Under military law, negligence on the part of a military officer in the 
performance of public duty becomes an otiense properly triable under 



559 

the OOtli article of war as " conduct to the iirejudice of good order and 
military discipline/' Of course the fact that the injury ^Yas uninten- 
tional is no excuse, {Aniicl- v. (fHara, G Blackford, -58,) even though 
the act be in itself lawful. {Talhj v. Ayres, 3 ^Sneed, (577.) 

In the English court of exchequer it has been laid down by Baron 
Alderson {Bli/th i\ Birmingham Water- WorJis Co., 11 Exch., 781) that 
*• negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, 
guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct 
of human atfairs, would do; or doing something which a prudent and 
reasonable man would not do." 

The question whether a party has been negligent in a particular case 
is one of mingled law and fact. [Purvis v. Coleman, 1st Bosic, 321.) 

" The question of care and negligence after the facts are ])roven must 
be decided by the court." {Biles v. Holmes, 11 Iredell Law Rep., 10.) 

It appears, by the testimony of Major Brown, {nineteenth day's proceed- 
ings,) that he never sent vouchers to be receipted after the claim had 
been allowed for bounty, unless the check at the same time with them. 

If reference is made to the testimony of Mr. Moody, it will ap])ear 
that, since the discontinuance of the Bureau, it has been the invariable 
practice of the chief disbursing officer for the Freedmen's Branch of 
the Adjutant-General's Ofifice to send the money for payment at the 
same time that the vouchers are to be receipted, and that vouchers are 
never receipted by colored claimants until the money is paid. 

In the instance under consideration the facts have not only been 
proven, but no denial has been attempted. 

In Shearman and Bedlield on Negligence, {section 13,) it is declared 
that— 

"The failure of any person to perform a duty imposed upon him by 
statute or other legal authority should always be considered evidence 
of negligence, or of something worse." 

Was it not the duty of the Commissioner, imi)osed by statute, to see 
that the claimant. Walker, was paid before putting the voucher for 
payment in the Treasury'? 

Story, in his work on Bailments, {section 17,) has followed the classi- 
fication of the civil law, and divided the subject of negligence into three 
degrees: slight, ordinary, and gross. 

He defines slight negligence as want of great care and diligence ; ordi- 
nary negligence to be the want of ordinary care and diligence; and gross 
negligence to be the want of even slight care and diligence. 

I desire to call the attention of the court to the fact that the duties 
of General Howard, as Commissioner, with reference to these payments, 
was a ministerial duty, and not a quasi-judicial duty. 

His responsibility, therefore, would be the responsibility of a minis- 
terial officer. 

It cannot, in any sense, be said that he exercised quasi-judicial func- 
tions with reference to the identification and payment of claims, any 
more than it could be said that a bank cashier or a paying-teller at the 
Treasnry would exercise such functions in the identification and pay- 
ment of holders of checks. 

Every ministerial officer, under the common law, is liable for his 
negligence. 

The resolution of Congress declared the Commissioner to be responsi- 
ble for the disbursement of the bounty-money, " under the same rules 
as govern other disbursing officers;" and when claimants alleged that 
they had not received their bounty, the question arose, to whom must 
the Government look as the responsible individual '? 



560 

The paper responsibility was w ith the Commissioner, for be had certi- 
fied the accounts, and they were settled in the Treasury in his name. 

Whether his individual accounts, or the accounts of Balloch, or the 
accounts of Brown, the law allowed him agents for certain designated 
purposes. 

But I submit that they were his agents in making the payments — 

First, from the peculiarity of the statute, and 

Second, from the fact that they were not disbursing officers in the 
usual acceptation of that term. 

In other words, they rendered no accounts to the Treasury; they filed 
no bonds in the Treasury; they gave bonds only to the Commissioner^ 
drawn either to himself or to the United States. 

Was it not his duty to take bonds and good securities from them 
sufficient to insure no loss to himself? 

In how many cases did he take such bonds ? 

The defense has not enlightened us on that point, and from the evi- 
dence adduced by me it would appear that bonds were not given in 
every instance. 

It woidd seem to have been the imperative obligation of the Commis- 
sioner to see that his agents faithfully performed the duties to which he 
assigned them, under proper and carefully-drawn rules and regulations. 

Where such agents were officers of the Army and a fraud was commit- 
ted, the Government had its recourse to trial by a general court-martial 
of the delinquent officer, or to calling upon the Commissioner to make 
good the sum lost to the public. 

He was for the purpose of paying these bounties, I submit, a minis- 
terial officer of the same general nature as an United States marshal or 
a sheriff. 

"All civil actions involving a money responsibility for breach of duty 
in the office of sheriff mast be ag iinst the high sheriff, though the de- 
fault may have been committed by one of his deputies. The deputy's 
negligence is a matter to be settled between him and the sheriif.-' 
(Cameron r. Reynolds, Coicper Rep., 403; Mclntyre r. Trumbull, 7 Johns. 
Rep., 3.5.) 

" For any criminal offense the deputy would, of course, be individu- 
ally liable." {^Yatcrhury r. Wester celt,' i) N. Y., 598.) 

These rules are founded upon public policy. 

A notable instance occurred in ISoD-'OO, when a deputy of the United 
States marshal in Xew York City, for the southern district of New 
York, i)ermitted a vessel to escape which had been fitted out for unlaw- 
ful purposes. The marshal himself was chargeable with no personal 
negligence ; but on the general priuci[)le that he was liable for the acts 
of his agents, although tliose agents were allowed him by law, the then 
Attorney-General of the United States (Black) held that, on these rules 
of public policy, the marshal was responsible, and should be dismissed 
from his office ; and he was accordingly so dismissed by the President. 

In this case the responsiblity of the marshal was a technical one, but 
not a moral one, and conveys a distinction which may be considered in 
this case. 

As to the liability of public officers, not Judicial, to a private action for- 
violation of an official duty, it my be stated, as a general ride, that a 
I)ublic officer who acts carelessly and negligently, or who, contrary to 
his duty, omits to act, [Adsit v. Brady, 4 Hill, 630 ; and Shepherd v. 
Lincoln, 17 Weiid., 2r)0,) is answerable in damages to any one who is 
specially injured thereby. 

" It is not enough tliat he is acting bona fide and to the best of his . 



561 

skill and judgment. He is bound to conduct himself with the skill and 
diligence which could reasonably be required of a skillful and diligent 
person under the circumstances." {IShcannan tt Bedfield, sec. 108, and 
Jones V. Bird, 5 BarneivaU & Adolplius, Rep., 837.) 

It has been held that " a public officer who acts without authority, 
or in excess of his authority, is, like a private agent, personally respon- 
sible for everj" such act. Ratification by the Government, or by a supe- 
rior officer, of an unlawful act, will not relieve him from suck liability, 
for, as we have already had occasion to remark, the Government cannot 
ratify an act of its officer which is clearly illegal, and which it could not 
itself have lawfully done, or authorized such agent to do." {See Shear- 
man and Redjield on Xeglif/ence, and the cases there cited, section 171.) 

It is hardl}' believed that the doctrine of respondeat superior is appli- 
cable to the case of the (Commissioner, unless it could be shown that 
he had taken all the precautions in the conduct of the affairs intrusted 
to him, which an ordinarily prudent man would take under like circum- 
stances ; and even then there are some doubts which I will hereafter 
point out. 

It was laid down by Mr. Justice Williams that it is a rule of law, 
'' that where the performance of a duty, specifically and imperatively 
imposed, is omitted, the fact that the officer intrusted it to some one 
else, who also neglected it, furnishes no excuse to the officer upon whom 
it was incumbent to see it done." {Picl'ard vs. Smith, 19 Com. Bench 
Bep., new series, 4:S0.) 

The fact that Congress provided, in the original act establishing the 
Bureau, that the Commissioner should give bonds with approved sure- 
ties in the sum of 8'50,()00, which might be put in suit for the benefit of 
any injured party, upon any breach of the conditions thereof, would 
seem to show that Congress intended to hold the Commissioner to a 
strict accountability for all his official acts. 

The great difficulty which has arisen in this branch of the case 
appears to be the natural result of the manner in which the payment 
of bounties was conducted, by taking receipts in advance, directly con- 
trary to the statute in such case made and provided. 

The honorable Attorney-General Williams, in his opinions before 
referred to, has touched slightly on this subject. 

The Commissioner being held responsible by the terms of the law, 
" the same as any other disbursing officer," employed agents as con- 
duits, through which bounty-moneys should go into the hands of claim- 
ants from himself. 

As the Commissioner was alone recognized at the Treasury, (see 
Second Com[)troller's and Second Auditor's testimony. Seventh and 
Eighth days' proceedings,) and as these agents were not known there, 
as a measure of ordinary prudence and care, was it not the duty of 
the Commissioner to take from these agents bonds with approved sure- 
ties in a sufficient amount to secure himself and the Government from 
any loss ? 

As a matter of fiict, how many such bonds has the defense proven 
here to have been given with reference, for example, to the alleged 
payments of the 171 cases through the several agents. 

What was the intent and meaning of this approval on the abstracts 
accompanying the vouchers alleged to be paid ? 

I Lave examined the vouchers noted on the above abstract, and hereby approve the pay- 
ment of the same. 

O O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

30 n c 



562 

Was it not the aimouuceraent of the Commissioner tbat he had ex- 
amined, that is, made ''a careful search, investigation, or fuquiry," and 
asceriained the truth of] and upprovedy that is, gave his official sanction 
to, these vouchers ? 

I invite your attention to the words " examine" and "approve "as 
defined by Webjster. 

Did not that certilicate contain the implication that payment had 
actually Ugeu made? 

What rules and regulations did the Commissioner prescribe to control 
the payments ? If we glance at the exhibits from O^ to B^ inclusive, 
from tlie letter-press-books, it is apparent that no regular system was 
prescribed, but that agents were given the greatest latitude as to 
identification, nmnner of ])ayment, and so forth. 

Mr. Balloch, in his testimony {tenth day\s proceedings) admits that 
no record was kept of letters received nntil 1871. 

When asked, " What knowledge had the Commissioner, if any, of the 
manner in which you transacted the business of your ofiScef he re- 
plied, " He had fnll knowledge of it, from his constantly examining my 
accounts, overlooking the business; the letter-books were always open 
for his inspection ; he was very often in the office looking over the let- 
ter-books to see what was being done, making inquiries of the clerks 
and myself." 

When asked the question, "Do you know whether or not the Commis- 
sioner, at any time after March 20, 1807, prescribed that it should be 
necessary for the claimant for bounty to establish by affidavits of two 
credible witnesses that he is the identical person named in the certifi- 
cate, as provided in the third section of the act of Congress, approved 
July 26, 1860, in cases where colored soldiers could previously be paid 
by checks, drafts, or orders?" .he answered, "I don't think that rule waa 
ever adopted." (Tenth day'' s proceedings.) 

Why did the Commissioner, on assuming the i)ayment of these boun- 
ties, depart from that rule ? Has any explanation been furnished t For 
I am not aware of any. 

The resolution of June 15, 1800, was a nmudatory resolution respect- 
ing the payment of bounties to colored soldiers, and pensions, bounties, 
and allowances to their heirs; and the third section provided as follows, 
(14 United States Statutes, page 308:) 

That in case the payments shall be made in the form of a check, order, or draft, upon 
any paymaster national bank, or Government depositary, it shall be necessary for the 
claimant to establish, Ijy the aifidavitsof two credible witnesses, tliat he is the identical per- 
son named therein, but in no case shall such cheeks, orders, or drafts be made negotiable 
until after such identification. 

Here was a provision of law bearing upon the question of identifica- 
tion of the colored claimants after the claim for bounty had actually 
been allowed, or, in other words, " settled" in the Second Auditor's 
Office, and made ready for payment. 

If this statute had been enforced by the Commissioner, can there be 
any doubt but chat it would have had a tendency to check fraudulent 
jiersonification of bounty-claimants, from the tact that while no crimi- 
nal penalties would result to a witness merely from su[)pressing a signa- 
ture to a receipt to a voucher where he knew that he was witnessing a 
false [)ers()nification, >et if required to testify to the fact that the payee 
was the identical person named in the claim, he would be liable to the 
pains and penalties for perjury. 

Some of those letter-press exhibits show that payment was made by 
check or draft directly to the colored bounty-claimant, contrary to the 



563 

resolution of March 29, 1867, and witliout the ideutiticatiou required by 
the act just quoted of 1807. 

If the Commissioner, in the hmguage of the witness, Balloch, had 
" full knowledoe " of the transaction of the business of his office, it 
would seem that he knew of these transactions. {Tenth da>/s proceed- 
iiif/s.) 

I desire to state in this connection that the exhibits from the letter- 
press-books produced by uie must not be taken as the only ones illus- 
trating a want of system in the conduct of the business of the Bureau, 
for the reason that the time allowed me gave opportunity only for the 
most cursory examination ; and many of the books were not examined 
at all. 

I mention this here because when the witness produced these illustra- 
tions, a member of the court asked a question to average the entire 
number of letters in the books. 

It is pertinent in this connection to notice that the witness, Balloch, 
admits (tenth day''s proeeedings) having tiled certain receipted vouchers 
in the Treasury on the usual abstracts, and claimed credit thereon, 
although he merely supposed that the amount represented by such 
vouchers which had been intrusted by him to an agent of the Bureau 
had been paid by the latter to the claimant. 

In this connection I refer to the case of the colored claimant, George 
W. Henderson, late a private of Company F, Sixtieth Colored Infantry, 
for whose claim a receiiited voucher was duly filed in the Treasury, July, 
1871, by Balloch, on an abstract approved b^' the Commissioner, but 
who was conclusively shown to have l)een defrauded out of his bounty- 
money by the Bureau agent, Major B. P. Eunkle, mIjo was convicted 
before a general court-martial on a specification alleging that fraud. 
{ISee Exhibits JS'^ and A'-*.) 

For the actual criminal offense, the Government had the right to 
prosecute him, and at the same time had, I submit, an equal right to 
look to the Commissioner who had approved the receipted vouchers 
filed in the Treasury for a reimbursement of the sum called for by those 
vouchers, whereby to pay the bounty-claimants. 

The very loose manner in which the business of paying these bounties 
was conducted is seen in the letter {Exhibit (/%) from the chief dis- 
bursing officer, Balloch, in Washington, to Eunkle, January 15, 1808, 
in which, while inclosing a check to pay bounties of a couple of colored 
claimants, resident in the interior of the State, he says : 

I don't know how many agents we have in Kentucky now ; hence I send them to 
you. 

Further on, August 12, 1869, {Exhibit J"-',) we find him again writ- 
ing to Eunkle and saying : 

As you have such a large lot of claimants, I could not send individual checks. * » "■ 
It' you have any vouchers in your hands for claimants that you have reason to believe are 
dead, or will never be heard from, you had better send them back to me ; thus freeing" your 
office from as much dead wood as possible. 

One singular thing appears from a survey of the evidence in this 
case, and that is, that when checks were thus returned, the receipted 
vouchers were not canceled by the one who had filed them in the Treas- 
ury and claimed credit thereon. 

Where that money was kept which was thus returned does not ap- 
l^ear. 

Now, who were considered disbursing officers within the meaning of 
the law, as construed by the Treasury Department ? 

In a circular to disbursing officers relating to vouchers and subvou- 
chers, {Exhibit Q continued,) from the Treasury, Second Comptroller's 



564 

Office, October 11, 1SG5, it is said that ''disbursing officers will be re- 
quired to furuisli the original vouchers or siibvouchers in their ac- 
counts," &c., and certainly the agents of the Commissioner were not 
disbursing officers in this sense, for the reason that they did not furnish 
any accounts to the Treasury. 

If they had been made regular disbursing and bonded officers or 
agents, and had been required by the Commissioner to account directU/ 
to the Treasury, and receipted vouchers from bounty claimants had, on 
payments made, been taken in their name, the Commissioner only hold- 
ing himself responsible for the correctness of the iiayments, so far as a 
2)rhna-facie examination of the accounts might go, the same as an ordi- 
nary Bureau head in the ^Var Department, tlie question might then 
have arisen whether such a course of procedure relieved him Irom im- 
mediate resjtonsibility for the correctness of the payments under the 
resolution of JNIarcli 21), 18{)7. 

As such a supposition does not apply in this instance, I submit tliat 
the mere showing of the Comuiissioner^ that he had sent out a check to 
make a payment, or of his chief disbursing officer to the same effect, 
does not in the slightest degree lessen the former's full accountability. 

In examining the testimony of the witnesses Balloch and Brown, it 
appears that an institution known as the "Freedman's Savings and 
Trust Company," in this city, with branches throughout the South, was 
largely used in making payments to colored claimants. 

(/.Vee Balloclis testimony, fourteenth day^s irrocedings ; see BrGu-ii's testi- 
mony, nineteenth day''s proceedings.) 

The course of procedure as shown by the evidence was to withdraw 
by checks from the Treasury here the amounts necessary to pay certain 
claimants, and deposit such sums with this Freedman's Savings and 
Trust Company in this city, and take its draft upon one of its branches 
nearest to the point where the desired payment was to be made. (Bal- 
loch's testimony, eleventh and fourteenth days' proceedings.) 

It is in evidence, {see Mr. Moody''s testimony, thirtieth day^s proceed- 
ings,) that in one instance (Alfred Hammond's case) a sum of money 
thus remained in the possession of this Fjeedman's Savings and Trust 
Company for a considerable period of time, the claimant never having 
appeared to claim it. In fact, it appears in the testimony of Major 
Brown, {see Exhibit C^,) that most of his paj ments were made thiough 
this uncertain company, and the form that he used to transmit a check 
was issued ''by order'-' of the Commissioner, and addressed to the 
" Cashier of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company at ," 

though he swears he never claimed credit at the Treasury on a receipted 
voucher until he was notified that the claimant had received his money. 
{Nineteenth deufs proceedings.) 

{See also Balloch^s testimony, near close of the eleventh day'' s proceedings, 
as to tcho iccre " trnstees^^ of this company. J 

Now, the public funds which were thus transferred to the parent 
branch of that company in Washington were not the identical funds 
received, hy the claimant, because the parent branch here, on receipt of 
such funds on deposit, gave a draft on its branch at a distance. 

It has been urged that it was to the interest of the Government, and 
greatly facilitated payments, to thus use this company. But, howsoever 
great the convenience may liave been, aside from the hazard of loss 
which might have resulted from the suspension or failure of this com- 
pany, there was a positive prohibitory- statute. 

I refer to the act of (Congress approved June II, 18GG, the second sec- 
tion of which says, among other things^ — 



565 

That if any disbursing; officer of the United States shall deposit any public money in- 
trusted to him iu any place or in any manner except as authorized bylaw, * * * or 
shall loan with or without interest, * * * or shall for any purpose not prescribed by 
law, transfer or apply any portion of the public money intrusted to him, every such act shall 
be deemed and adjudged an embezzlement of the moneys so deposited, converted, used, 
loaned, withdrawn, transferred, or aplied ; and every such act is hereby declared a felony, 
and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than one 
year nor more than ten years, or by fine not more than the amount embezzled, nor less than 
one thousand dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. 

Sec. 3. Jnd be it further enacted, That if any banker, broker, or any person not an au- 
thorized depositary of public money, shall knowingly receive from any disbursing officer 
* * * or other agent of the United States, any public money, on deposit or by way 
of loan, or accommodation, with or without interest, or otherwise than in paj-ment of a 
debt against the United States, * * *■ every such act shall be deemed and ad- 
judged an embezzlement of the money so deposited, loaned, transferred, used, converted, 
appropriated or applied; and any president, cashier, teller, director, or other officer of any 
bank, or banking association, who shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall be 
deemed and adjudged guilty of embezzlement of public money, and punished as provided in 
section 2 of this act. 

I DOW leave this subject, inviting the attention of the court to tlie 
consideration of the extent of the legal, technical, and moral responsi- 
bility of the Commissioner. 

ir. 

The next subject which presents itself to our notice is the allega- 
tion that receipted vouchers, covering alleged payments, in the sum of 
837,919.04, were filed in the Treasury on abstracts approved by the Com- 
missioner, when, in ])oiut of fact, that sum had not been paid to bounty- 
claimants, and was turned over on the discontinuance of the Bureau to 
Captain McMillan, the officer designated by the Secretary of War to re- 
ceive it. 

In referring to the testimony of Major Brown, {nineteenth daifs testi- 
mony,) and of ]\[r. bloody, {twenty-ninth day^s pyoceedimjH,) it appears 
that he turned over $31,078 of this sum, the balance of $6,841.54 having 
been transmitted, at an earlier period, to one O. C. French, an agent of 
the Bureau at Natchez, Miss., and b}' him apj^ropriated to his own use. 

Here was a large sum of money withdrawn from the Treasury, for 
which, it might be said, no one was, apparently, responsible, because 
the receipted vouchers of the colored claimants had already- been put in 
the Treasury to cover the expenditures. It would seem from the evi- 
dence that these sums had been sent to pay bounty-claimants in various 
parts of the country, but that for one reason and another, such as that 
the bounty-claimants could not be found, the money could not be paid 
to the persons to whom due. 

I have to invite the attention of the court to the consideration whether 
under the before-recited act of 184G, and the rules governing disbursing 
officers, contained iu the Army Regulations, the filing of these receipts 
in the Treasury before actual payment of the money, was not a violation 
of law. 

It may be intimated, or the suggestion might arise, that after the re- 
ceipt hj the claimant of the voucher, an<l the withdrawal of the money 
from the Treasury, the Commissioner held it, or his agent under him, 
solely as the trustee or attorney of the claimant. 

But to this I reply that public funds remain public funds until they 
actually get into tbe hands of the individual to whom properly payable, 
and that this has been passed upon by successive Attorneys-General to 
the same effect, with reference to the legal process of garnishee. — (6 
Opinions Attorneys- General, p. 759 ; 3 Opinions Attorneys-General, p. 718.) 

Balloch has sHvorn that only about §9,000 of this sum {thirteenth 
day^s proceedings) pertained to his disbursements, and that the balance 
belonged to General Howard's and Mtijor Brown's disbursements. 



5G6 

Bat in view of the fact that Major Brown swears that he always sent 
the vouchers to be receipted only when he sent the money, it would 
seem as if the difference between $1>,000 and §31,078 was the amount of 
receipted vouchers which the Commissioner took while he was personally 
making disbursements, 

It remains with the court to determine the technical, moral, and legal 
responsibility of the late Commissioner under the laws referred to. 

III. 

The next allegation is, that on the discontinuance of the Bureau, 
and its transfer to theAVar Department, in June, 1872, the Commissioner 
failed to transfer the sum of $3,754.09, more or less, to meet unsettled 
claims of colored claimants, the said deficit being the difference between 
the amount of unsettled claims and the amount of funds transferred to 
meet them. And he failed to invite attention to the fact that there was 
such a deficit. 

It appears by the testimony of the witnesses Balloch, Brown, and 
Moody that the amount transferred by Major Brown to Cajitain McMillan 
was not sufficient to meet the number of bounty-claims wiiich were trans- 
ferred at the same time, and for which checks had already been obtained 
from the pay department in order to pay them. 

To ascertain whether enough money had been transferred, an exami- 
nation had to be made of the bounty registers, which were found to be 
unreliable, and the jacket cases of bounty-claims on hand marked paid, 
in connection with the records of the Second Auditor's Office, by which 
this examination was verified. {Mr. Moody, in ticenty-ninth dayh pro- 
ceedings.) 

It is proven beyond doubt that this deficit occurred during the time 
that the witness Balloch was acting as chief disbursing officer for the 
Commissioner, and that when he, Balloch, was notified of the deficit, 
which was reduced on examination to $2, 889.49, he, Balloch, turned 
that money over to meet it. {Mr. Moody, in thirty-Jirst day's proceed- 
ings; Balloch' s letter, p. 48, Exhibit B.) 

The question therefore arises, who was responsible for this state of 
affairs ? 

The late Commissioner had assumed the duties in October, 1871, which 
had been performed by his disbursing officer, Balloch. 

If this deficit existed then, as it undoubtedly did, why did he not 
cause that examination to be made, which was subsequently thrown 
upon the Adjutant- General's Office, in order to require Balloch to make 
good that sum ? 

It has been said in explanation that Balloch had used $2,530.13 of 
this bounty-money, furnished to pay specific claims, in order to pay 
claims a second time, that had been paid, on fraudulent representations, 
to the wrong parties. {Balloch's testimony, ticenty-Jirst day's proceed- 
in f/s.) 

But that would leave $353.30 in his hands from October 11, 1871, to 
January 31, 1873. 

It remains for the court to determine whether or not there was any 
" negligence" on the part of the late Commissioner in not causing that 
full sum to be turned over to him when his chief disbursing officer was 
relieved from duty in the Bureau in order to turn it over himself when 
relieved of disbursing duties. 

IV. 

The next allegation is that the late Commissioner failed to transfer 



567 

tbe sum of 82,867 to meet certaiu retained fees, so called, due to certaiu 
attorneys at the date of tbe discontinuance of tbe Bureau, or to notify 
tbe War Department tbat tbe said fees bad been kept back or beld in 
trust, or tbat voucbers, including- the amount of said fees, bad been 
signed by colored claimants, and filed witb tbe Second Auditor of the 
Treasury. 

By referring to Exbibits E^ and F^, it is ascertained tbat tbe former 
disbursing- officer, Ballocb, retained tbese fees in bis possession, amount- 
ing to tbe sum mentioned, until directed in a communication from tbe 
War Department, of September 23, 1872, to turn tbe amount over, with 
a list of tbe suspended and unlicensed attorneys baving fees in bis bands. 

To tbe question to bim : "Did General Howard direct any disposition 
to be made of sucb witbbeld sums? If so, what direction did be give?" 
tbe witness replied, " He gave me no direction in the matter." 

This money was retained by Ballocb, until be was compelled to turn 
it over after tbe discontinuance of tbe Bureau, on tbe plea tbat Mr. H. 
C. Harmon, of tbe Second Auditor's Office, tbongbt he bad better do so. 
{Eleventh day's proceedings.) 

Tbe money, not having been paid to tbe attorneys, was, of course, 
public money, even altbougb receipted voucbers, covering tbe entire 
bounty sum, inclusive of attorneys' fees, had been filed in tbe/Treasury, 
and credit ckiimed. {See BallocWs testimony, eleventh day, thirteenth day, 
twenty-Jirst day.) 

As there was a regular record-book prepared, baving the name of the 
attorney, and tbe name of the case in wbich the fee was deducted, and 
this book was kept in his office-desk, it is submitted as to whether the 
Commissioner could reasonably be supposed to have known of the fact. 
That book seems to have subsequently disappeared. 

V. 

The next allegation is witb reference to tlie defalcation of St. Clair 
Mandeville, a civilian agent of the Bureau, in tbe sum of 88,503.29. 

In this case it appears by the evidence tbat tbe first information of 
tbe War Department on tbe subject was derived from a letter of tbe 
Commissioner to the Hon. W. P. Kellogg, in the letter press book. 

Subsequent to Major Vincent's report of August 4, 1873, {to he found 
in Uxhihit B, page 8,) certain other records bearing on this question ap- 
pear to have come into the possession of the Adjutant-General's Office 
recently. 

It appears in evidence that Mandeville gave a bond in the sum of 
810,000 to General Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
upon being appointed agent, with proper sureties ; tbat on his sudden 
decease it was found tbat he had not paid all the claimants, although 
his register of payment was marked " paid." 

It also appears that the Commissioner, so soon as be ascertained that 
there was something wrong in tbe premises, proceeded at once to cause 
an inspection to be made, and to institute suit upon the bond of Man- 
deville, so tbat there should be no loss to tbe Government. 

By the testimony of Mr. Moody, {tieenty fourth day\s proceedings,) 
it appears that Sergeant Benjamin Olivia, now of tbe Twenty-fifth 
United States Infantry, claims tbat he has never received tbe bounty of 
§258.06 which the agent, Mandeville, should have paid him. 

Tbis case forms one of the 174 cases. 

I leave this subject with the suggestion that, if the records bearing 
on this case could have been turned over to the Adjutant-General's De- 



oG8 

partnieiit at au earlier day tliau December, 1S73, (see ticenty-ninth days 
2)roce€ding.s',) from which a list might have been prepared showing what 
claimants had probably beeu defrauded of the bounty due, this allega- 
tion might not have beeu made. 

It is noticeable that the Commissioner pursued in the case of Mande- 
yille apparently the proper course in requiring him to give a bond in 
sutticient sureties to himself. 

It was the first bond given ; and it appears that the Government, 
without expense to the Commissioner, has instituted suit on those 
sureties. 

If, however, those sureties could not pay the costs of the suit, as well 
as the amount of the defalcation, it is submitted that the Commissioner 
would be himself pecninarily responsible to the Government for such 
sums due colored soldiers as may not be recovered from the sureties. 

YI. 

I now invite attention to the O. C. French defalcation, in the sum 
of 86,841.54. {Exhibit C\) in evidence. 

In the first place, it appears that his appointment as " paid agent" 
was revoked by the Commissioner fticenty-Jirst day's proeeedinysj on 
the 31st of March, 1871, but he continued to act up to and after October 
11, 1871, when Balloch was relieved. 

The necessary action having been taken by the War Department 
through the Department of Justice, judgment was obtained and $3,000 
recovered, leaving a balance still due of .$3,811.54:, which, with $1,518.53, 
additional cases of colored soldiers, amounts to $5,300,07 still due and 
unpaid. {Exhibit F'^.) 

The same degree of responsibility which would attach to the Commis- 
sioner in the 174 cases is applicable here, because vouchers in all these 
cases were filed in the Treasury on abstracts a])proved by him, as ad- 
mitted by the defense. {Seventeenth day's proceedings.) 

VII. 

The next allegation is Avith reference to the frauds of the Bureau 
agent, Benjamin P. Kunkle, late major Uiiited States Army, retired, in 
the sum of $073.24. 

Eunkle was duly tried and convicted before a general court-martial 
for his criminal conduct. 

He was sentenced to pay a fine, which was remitted, but not required 
to reimburse the Government to the extent of the embezzlement 
beyond such executive action as to the stoi)page of his pay as was en- 
forced before his dismissal from service. {Exhibit J?"*.) {Ticenty-third 
day^s proceedinys.) 

As Eunkle was required by the Commissioner to render no accounts 
to the Treasury, and only to himself, he, the Commissioner, or his chief 
disbursing officer, alone appearing as payors of the disbursed sums, it 
is submitted that the Commissioner is chargeable with the same degree 
of responsibility, technically, legally, and morally, as in the 174 cases. 

As every officer or agent of the United States who should receive 
public money was required by the acts of January 31, 1823, and July 17, 
18G2, (hereafter to be quoted,) to render accounts direct to the Treasury, 
and as the Commissioner, by requiriny the accounts to be made to himself, 
prevented the Bureau agents complying with these legal provisions^ it is sub- 
mitted that unusual care, diligence, and i)recaution was required on 
his part that he should not be chargeable with neglect of duty. 



569 

Second. 

The next allegation to be considered is the alleged payment by Bal- 
loch to Runkle of $1,331.03 pnblic funds. 

The former swore on his examination that this sum was from his owa 
pocket and not public funds. {Tirenfy third day's proceedings.) 

The allegation, therefore, might be regarded as haying fallen but for 
the letter from Balloch to the Secretary of War of date November 8, 
1872, {Exhibit T^,) which seems sufticient to lead to the reasonable con- 
clusion that the money transferred was " public " money. In that let- 
ter Balloch says he paid Eunkle the money to reimburse him for mis- 
takes made by his agents in paying bounties to the wrong parties, AThich 
he had been obliged to assume. 

He does not there say he loaned him the money. 

Third. 

I now invite attention to the subject of the "irregular retained- 
l^ounty" moneys due colored soldiers. 

Under Major-Gen'eral B. F. Butler's order No. 90, of August 4, 1SG4, 
[Exhibit I>*,] a fund was created which was turned over in August, 
1865, to the Freedmen's Bureau. 

The total amount finally received by Balloch as disbursing officer for 
the Commissioner was $119,021.19. 

Some of this money was actually invested in United States bonds 
when received. On March 2, 1807, Congress passed an act to regulate 
the disposition of this irregular fund in the custody of the Freedmen's 
Bureau. 

By that act it is mentioned as a retained-bounty fund derived from a 
portion of the State bounties of certain colored soldiers enlisted in Vir- 
ginia and North Carolina during the years 1804 and 1805. The act pro- 
ceeded to recite as follows : 

That the said Commissioner he, and he is hereby, specially authorized and empowered to 
invest the said fund, or any portion thereof, in bonds of the United States, for the exclusive 
benefit of the said eiilored soldiers, or their legal representatives : Provided, however, That a 
sufficient amount of the same in cash he retained uninvested to meet all lawful claims thereupon 
that icill probably be presented fur payment : And provided further. That any portion of the 
said fund which may remain unexpended ichen the said Bureau shall cease to ezisi shall be ac- 
counted for by the said Commissioner to the Treasury of the United States. (14 Stat., p. 545.) 

Vouchers for the expenditure of portions of this money were undoubt- 
edly rendered to the Third Auditor's Office for a considerable period of 
time, and afterward taken away and rendered to the Second Auditor's 
Office. Vouchers, however, for one month of that time (June, 1888) never 
have been rendered to the Third Auditor's Office. In the Third Auditor's 
Office the clerk in charge of the division decided that, in his judgement, 
those accounts were not properly accounts for settlement in the Third 
Auditor's Office. {Mr. Vinson''s testimony, thirty-fifth and thirty-sixth 
day^s proceedings.) When transferred to the Second Auditor's Office 
and rendered there for a time, the Second Auditor made up his mind 
that he had nothing to do with it, and he was of opinion that those ac- 
counts i^roperly belonged to the Third Auditor. {Twenty -fifth day- s pro- 
ceedings.) The Second Comptroller decided that the accounting should 
be made at the end of the trusteeship. {T to enty- sixth day^s proceedings.) 
At any rate, although there appears to be some confusion in the opinions 
of the accounting officers of the Treasury on this subject, the vouchers 
were withdrawn from the Treasury and taken and tiled in the Com- 
missioner's disbursing office, and remained there until Balloch was re- 
lieved from duty, October 11, 1871. Balloch swears he never took 



570 

them away, and be swears they Avere lost or mislaid, and he knows not 
where they are. {Thirteenth daifx proceed inqfi.) 

There cannot be the slightest doubt that tiiis was money raised in the 
United States for the support of those refugees and freeduien to whom 
it belonged, nor that it had come into the possession of the officers ot 
the Unite<l States Army. 

The act of l<S()7,Jiist quoted, undoubtedly required the ac(;ounting at 
some period of time of the balance, and the balance could oidy be ascer- 
tained by kiu)wing the exact amount which had been received and 
which had been (expended, with accompanying vouchers to show whether 
it had been exi)ended according to the tenor of the act or not. The 
earlier act of June 15, 180G, for the settlement of accounts of certain 
public officers, provided in the 1st section : 

'J'liat all moneys raised in the United States for the support of refiip^ces or freedinen, and 
vecnived by any <)ffieer of the United States Army, shall Ix; ehargeil against any snch officer 
on tlio books of the Treasury Department, and accouiit(;d for by him in like numuer as if 
such moneys had been drawn from the Treasury of the United States; and if any part 
thereof shall have been expended for the use of refufcecs orfreedmen, the same shall be passed 
to tlie credit of the oflKcer if, upon examination of iiis accounts, it iijiall appear to the proper 
accountintjoHicer of the Treasury Department that the aniount expended was properly dis- 
bursed for snch refugees or freed men, and on the adjustment of the accounts of the otificer, 
if any balance shall remain in the hands of such officer, the same shall be paid into the 
Treasury of the United States for a fund for the relief of refugees and fVeedmen. And any 
officer liaving such balance in his hands who, after being duly required, shall refuse or neg- 
lect to pay over the same, or who shall, after due notice, fail to settle his account, shall.be 
proceeded against in the same manner as is provided for by existing laws in the case of 
disbursing officers who neglect or refuse to account for moneys drawn from the Treasury 
of the United States. (14 Stat., p. (35.) 

This act would seem to have been clearly applicable to this " irregular 
retaincd-bounty" iund, because it required the oHicer to account to the 
Treasury in like maniun- as if su(;h moneys had been drawn from tlie 
Treasury of the United States. It also nnule it the duty of the proi)er 
accounting ofli(!er of the Treasury to see that the amount expended was 
pro]>erly disbursed. 

J>ut whether or not I>alloch should have rendered vouchers to the 
Treasury lor this fund [»rior to the date of final accounting is imma- 
terial in this connection. The Commissioner of the Bureau, or his suc- 
cessor in office, was specifically constituted the legal custodian of said 
retainedbounty fuiul, ami a])i)ointed trustee of the sauu^ for tlie benefit 
of those colored soldiers. What, therefore, were his duties in the prem- 
ises ? 

Prior to the passage of that act, IMarch 2, 1807, the money was in Bal- 
\oQ\i'i^\\i\\\(\%, {thirteenth dmfs procee(Un(j^H :) but noti('e, Balloch was acting 
as the agent or attorney for the Commissioner. Was it not the duty of 
the Commissioner to have taken that fund immediately into his own 
hands? Jialloch, when asked the question, "Do you know who was 
made by that act of March 2, 1807, the lawful custodian of that retained- 
bounty fund, or trustee of the same?" replied, " Tiie Commissioner of 
the I'reedmen's Bureau." 

To the (juestion, "Then in what caj)acity <lid you act under him in 
reference to that irregular-bounty fund, aft(U' the i)assage of that act?" 
he replied: "Acting as hiti agent, the saiiu^ as I did in the disburse- 
ment of all othei- moneys. I was tlu> disbursing olficer, and all disburse- 
ments were tunu'd over to me. That was my (lei)artment." {Thirteenth 
(1(1 fps proceedings.) 

It must be assunied, therefore, that Balloch, in this transaction, was 
purely the agent or attorney of fact for the (Commissioner, and wholly 
governed by rules ap[)licable in such cases. But he says he was acting 
in the same capacity as with reference to the disbursement of other 
funds for the Commissioner, and it has been intimated here that the 



571 

Commissioner wns uot responsible beyond ordinaiy care and diligence 
for the acts of bis disbursing* officer. The Commissioner never called 
npon Balloch to tnrn over that fund into his own hands, nntil October 
11, 1871. {Ticenty-third day's procci'di)i(js.) 

Balloch says he does not remember any particular conversation with 
the Commissioner with reference to the mode of expenditure of this 
fund, or the manner of keeping the accounts, or the description of 
vouchers that were taken by him, tliongh he does recollect that he con- 
ferred with him about making the investment in bonds. {Thirteenth 
daiffi proceedings.) 

The rules on the subject of trusteeship are very broad and Well de- 
fined with reference to the subject of accounting. It is laid down by 
Adams on Equity, {sec. 37,) supported by authorities, that — 

A trustee is bound to account for and protect the property while his trust continues. It 
is one of his principal and most important duties that he should keep rejjular and accurate 
accounts, clearly distinj^uishinp: the trust-property from his own, and showing- all iiis re- 
ceipts and payments in respect to it; and tliat he shoitld be always ready to produce those 
accounts to his cestui que triixt. It is also a most important duty that he should protect the 
property confided to him whilst tlie trust continues, and should for that purpose retain the 
control of it in his own hands. Tiie duty of retaining the control in his own hands pre- 
cludes the trustee not onh- from assignino^ tiie property altogether to a stranger, but even 
from conferring on such stranger a joint authority with himself. It is true that in the latter 
case he does not actually part with the estate, but he enables a third party to interfere with 
bis discretion, and defeats, pro tniilo, the object contemplated by the trust. (Solway vs. 
Solway, 4 Russell, p. (JO.) 

The trustee, however, is not necessarily ])reclnded from acting by the 
agency of others where such a mode of acting is according to the ordi- 
nary course of business; for instance, he may employ a steward or 
agent. {Adams on Uquity., section 57.) 

" If a trustee fail in performance of his trusts, whether by exceeding 
or falling short of its pro[)er limits, the cftS'^Mi que trust is entitled to a 
remedy in equity." {Adams on J^qiiity, section 61.) 

This was a si)ecial trust for certain designated individuals. The ren- 
dition of accounts by Balloch to the Treasury for the suui so expended 
by him, unless on tlie direct approval of the Commissioner, under his 
immediate supervision, cotdd have no validity whatever. If these 
vouchers were lost, who was responsible for the loss; the mere agent, or 
the trustee himself? Who was it that the law required to make the 
accounting to the Treasury? Not the agent, but the trustee. Therefore, 
as these vouchers appear to have been in the office of the Bureau when 
Balloch was relieved, October 11, 1871, and as the Commissioner was 
required to make an accounting at some time to the Treasury, was it 
uot his duty to have taken possession of those vouchers so as to ascer- 
tain, at the very least, whether the sum of $1,028.59 was a correct balance 
from disbursements made by his agent? I submit whether or not he is 
properly chargeable for neglect of duty under the 99th Article of War, 
under the circumstances stated. {See Balloch^s testimony, thirteenth 
day\s proceedings.) 

The vouchers have not been produced. The Bureau was discontinued 
on the 30th June, 1872, by an act approved June 10. In the conduct 
of tlie business which had been devolved by that act upon the Secretary 
of War, the attention of the Adjutant-General's Office was directed to 
this subject by the receipt of a letter from somebody in North Carolina, 
ai)plying to the office for his bounty. There was no record of any claim 
upon the registers or other records of the office in favor of the man. 
Out of that circumstance a letter appears to have been addressed to the 
late Commissioner early in January, 1873, in relation to this matter. 
{Thirty-^first day's proceedings.) And about that time, between the 



572 

7tli January and the 20tli February, 1873, the "irregular retained 
bounty" fuud book, which contained a record of the names of the 
colored soldiers to whom that fund was due, was received from the late 
Commissioner. {Thirty second day's lyroceedings.) 

That book, as api)ears by the testimony of Balloch, {twenty-first 
day's proceedings^) had been, on the discontinuance of the Bureau, 
taken to his house from the Freedmen's Bureau oftice, in Howard Uni- 
versity. If the correspondence with General Howard resulted in nothing 
else, it resulted in the production of that register which belonged to the 
j)ublic records of the oftice. 

There is nothing in this case to show that the colored soldiers, whose 
names are entered on that register as " paid," have actually been 
paid, beyond the statement of Balloch, and even he said, when asked 
w^hether he could swear that payments were always made to the right- 
ful claimant, referred to iu the irregular bounty fund register : "I could 
not, i^ositively. There was the same door open to fraud that there was 
in the payment of other bounty, and more, as this could be paid on 
powers of attorney.". {Fourteenth day\s proceedings.) 

He came iu here and was asked by the court to produce an account- 
current which he had rendered since this investigation begun to the 
Commissioner, for such expenditures as he (Balloch) might have made of 
this fuud, with a deposition attached as to the manner of making pay- 
ments. ( Thirty-fourth day^s proceedings.) 

As between the Commissioner and Balloch iu the matter of account- 
ing, it is totally- immaterial, because Balloch was only the steward of the 
Commissioner in this matter, and his acts could have no individual 
validity. 

If all these payments, or some of them, were actually made, why were 
not the firms of Chipmau, Hosuier & Co., of this city, and Wolf, Hart 
& Co., of this city, or the certain attorney in Norfolk who prosecuted 
some of the claims, {BaUoch's testimony, twenty-third day'' s proceedings,) 
brought before this court to testify with reference to such claims as they 
are marked on the register as having been attorneys for? Brevet Major 
Andrew Coates, late United States Volunteers, {thirty-fifth day's jyroceed- 
ings,) was brought here from New York City to testify as to the pay- 
ments he had made of this irregular-bounty fund for the Commissioner 
while on duty as Bureau agent in North Carolina, and as the affirmative 
rested with the defense to show that j^ayments had been nuxde on proper 
vouchers and to the rightful claimants, in lieu of the vouchers destroj'ed, 
mislaid, or lost, why were not i)arties brought before the court to sub- 
stantiate such an affirmative tor the defendant"? {T a- em y -third day's pro- 
ceedings.) 

The next point to be considered in this transaction is the right of the 
honorable Secretary of War, as the head of an Executive Department, 
under the act of August 7, 1789, (1 iStat., sec. 7, p. 49,) to call on the 
late Commissioner, as the head of a former Bureau in his Department, 
for such infornuition on tbis subject as to him seemed desirable. Tliere 
can be no doubt that if it was on the question of the rendering of 
accounts by any officer iu that Department direct to the Treasury for 
public funds, he could, nevertheless, require such other reports or returns 
from such officer as he may deem desirable; and even when the acts of 
1823 and 18G2 were i)assed, requiring direct accountability to the Treas- 
ury" of disbursing officers or agents, a proviso was inserted that " nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to restrain the heads of any of the De- 
partments from requiring such other rcturiis or reports from the officer or 
ayent, subject to the control of such heads of Departments, as the public inter- 
ests may require.^^ 



673 

Xow, with reference to this " irreguhir retained" boimty-fuDcl the law 
provided that theCommivSsiotier of the Bureau, or his successor, shoukl 
be the custodiau, {act March 2, 1SG7, li^'t'f^iouf^Jy quoted,) and that any 
portion of the said fund which remained unexpended when the Bureau 
sliouhl cease to exist should be accounted for by the Connnissioner to 
the Treasurj-. 

Tliere cannot Ve the slightest doubt that those moneys were ^'moneys 
due to colored soldiers or their heirs.''' In the act of June 10, 1872, dis- 
continuing the Bureau as a distinct Bureau of the War Deiiartment, it 
was provided that '*• aU acts and parts of acts pertaining to the collection 
and payment of bounties or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or 
marines, or their heirs, shall remain in force until otherwise ordered by 
Congress, the same to he carrpied into effect by the Secretary of War, who 
may employ such clerical force as maybe necessary for the performance^ 

The use of the phrase in that act, '■'other moneys due to colored soldiers 
or their heirs,'- must be taken and deemed to have included the moneys 
due to colored soldiers or their heirs, held by the Commissioner as trustee 
under the act of March 2, 1807. In point of fact he only held, at the 
date of the discontinuance of the Bureau, bounty-moneys received from 
the Pay Dei)artment, and this " irregular retained bounty-money" as 
due to " colored soldiers or their heirs." 

The act of June 10, 1872, continued in force all the acts pertaining to 
the payment of bounties or other moneys to colored soldiers or their 
heirs, and 1 submit it jrro tanto repealed (as is frequently the case in 
statutes of Congress) that portion of the act of 1867, March 2, which 
required the Commissioner to account for the balance of all irregular 
retained bounty-money to the Treasury direct, because it was money 
unpaid but due, and the act of June 10, discontinuing the Bureau, provided 
for the continuance of payments of moneys due colored soldiers. The 
l)revions act of discontinuance would measurably have been nugatory 
if the Commissioner's duty had been simply to deposit the balance in 
the Treasury and account for that. 

Eeferring"^ to the printed report of the United States commissioners 
on the revision of the statutes [page 979, title 29.) now before Congress, 
I find that they take the same view as herein submitted, and that they 
decide and liave incorporated, as section 4 in the proposed revision of 
the statutes, a clause to the ellect that the Secretary of War is consti- 
tuted the lawful custodian of the retained-bounty fund under considera- 
tion, and that he is considered such trustee of such fund for the benefit 
of such colored soldiers or their lawful representatives, to whom the 
same shall be paid upon their application or discovery. 

In leaving this subject I have only to invite the attention of the court 
to the large sum composing this fund, for which no vouchers have been 
rendered to the Treasury, and to the fact that the investigation of this 
matter has arisen from the endeavors of the War Department to obtain 
a proper accounting, in order that when applicauts applied, alleging 
money due, it might be known whether they were entitled to payment, 
and, if so, to pay them. As there was and is a balance still due colored 
soldiers, of this fund, the very object of the act of June 10, 1872, appears 
to be to enable such soldiers to be paid when they shall apply to the 
War Department for the money due them in this balance of 81,628.59. 
All laws must be reasonably construed, and a different construction 
would defeat the purpose of the law. 

Fourth. 
I now invite the attention of the court to the allegation that the 



574 

Oommissioner, through George W. Balloch, his disbursiug officer, did 
file with the accoiintiiig officer of the United States Treasurer accounts 
duly certified as to funds of the United States in various sums from 
nine thousand to eight hundred thousand dollars being on deposit with 
the United States Treasurer, when said funds were not so deposited. 

There has been an effort on the part of the defense to show that an 
explanation can be made of said deticits by reason of taking up the cer- 
tificates of bounty-claims allowed by the Second Auditor as " cash " be- 
fore the Conunissioner, or his agent, Balloch, had actually received from 
the Paymaster-Geueral's Office a check for the sums indicated in those 
bounty-CiU'tificates, and before he had actually receipted to the pay- 
master for such sums. {Mr. I'ernfs testimom/, thirti/fifth day^s proceed- 
irujs. tiecond Comptroller'' s testimony , thirty-seventh ddy's irroceedings.) 

The very attemi)t to show that such certificates were taken up as 
"cash"' is an acknowledgment of the Commissioner's responsibility, for 
the reason that Balloch only received those sums from the Paymaster- 
General's Office, as an attorney or lujent of the Commissioner, on specific 
authority to sign for him. {Exhibit *S'.) Unlbrtunately for this theory 
of the defense, by reference to Exhibit X*^, introduced in the testimony 
of Mr. Sabine,) all the certificates on hand received from the Second 
Auditor were considered and deducted in making u{> these balances, 
and a reference to the exhibit will show the fact. {Thirty -third doy''s 
proceedinijs.) 

Mr. Sabine swore to the correctness of these data, and that "they 
contained statements of all the balances on deposit for each month in 
the Treasury at Washington, as rendered by the disbursing officers to 
the accounting officers of the Treasury, between June, 1807, and Sep- 
tember, 1871, in(;lusive," from the statements furnished by the several 
accounting offi(!ers of the Treasury, and it a])pears ot record the ac- 
cused admitted that the figures {on pp. land '1, Exhibit B, part 2,) are 
substantially correct. ( Thirty third day\s proeeedinys.) 

To the question of the judge advocate : " Do you know whether or 
net the documents furnished l)y the accounting officers of the Treasury 
under the seal and certificate of the Secretary certified to the fact as to 
whether they contained all the data necessary for your iufornuition, in 
order to prepare this statement ?" JMr. Sabine replied : '' 1 understand 
that they are fully stated ; the figures are fully stated." 

Take for exami)le the month of February, 1870, stated in part 2, page 2 
of Exhibit B. By reference to the exhibit put in evidence in Mr. Sabine's 
testimony, it appears that there was a difference between the report 
of the disbursing- officer (Balloch) in his account-current to the Treas- 
ury and the actual balance there on hand of $820,576.28; in other 
words, that Balloch reported this amount as actually in the Treasury, 
when, in point of tact, it was not there. The court will therefore see 
that if the amount of certificates on hand, considered as " cash" should 
be added to this sum, it would only swell the deficiency instead of less- 
ening it, because the certificates were not in the Treasury ; they had not 
been converted. I submit there is no reasonable explanation which has 
yet been given to account for this large sum having been withdrawn 
from the Treasury. Money in transitu to i)ay claims of colored soldiers 
could not, according to the reports which liave been introduced here of 
the amounts paid during the year, reasonably be in transitu at the time 
the aeeount would be rendered. If these deficit balances amounted only 
to thirty or forty thousand dollars the explanation might be accepted 
to the effect that money was in transitu to pay claims. 

When we come to look at the testimony of Mr. Brodhead, Second 



575 

Comptroller, brought on tlie stand by the defense to disprove these fig- 
ures, we find him explicitly stating that he had not gone to the various 
accounting officers {Second, Third, and Fourth Auditors and Secretary 
of the Treasury) to make a thorough investigation of this matter, but 
that he rested his opinion on the statements of Balloch and Terry made 
to him, and three or four instances taken at random, and on the fact that 
money in transitu was often rejjorted by an officer until he received no- 
tice of its receipt. [Comptroller'' s letter in thirty-sixth day's proceedings. 
Comptroller'' s testimony, thirty-seventli day^s proceedings.) 

'Balloch disbursed, according to \\\^ accounts-current with the Second 
Auditor for February, $140,501.88, and in March, $109,187.10 ; thus 
showing that this sum could not have been in transitu for the purpose 
of making disbursements of bounty-claims ready for payment. I sub- 
mit that the more reasonable explanation of these enormous deficits is 
that this sura was withdrawn from the Treasury for purposes not here 
apparent, in violation of the act of Congress of March 3, 1857, which 
made it the duty of every disbursing officer or agent of the United 
States having any money of the United States intrusted to him for 
disbursement to deposit" the same with the Treasurer of the United 
States, or with some one of the assistant treasurers or public deposita- 
ries, and to draw for the same only in favor of the person to whom pay- 
ment is to be made in performauce of law ; and there is but one ex- 
ception, when payments are to be made in sums of $20, in which 
cases such disbursing agent may checik in his own name, stating that it 
is to pay small claims. (11 Stat., p. 249.) 

The act of June 14, 1800, on this subject (14 Stat., p. 05) has already 
been quoted, and in that act it is declared to be a felony for any dis- 
bursing officer, for a purpose not prescribed by law, to withdraw from 
the Treasury any public money. 

I take it to be the duty of this court, in investigating, to endeavor to 
ascertain whetlier there is sufficient probable cause to induce a belief that 
any offense has been committed under the laws of the United States, including 
the 9i)th Article of War, as to neglect of duty or other conduct prejudicial 
to good order and military discipline. 

From January 1, 1809, the whole work of the Bureau had been dis- 
continued, excepting the payment of bounties and the educational 
work. 

The rules as to " negligence'' which I have before rpioted, I submit, 
are applicable to the consideration of this question, and as the disburs- 
ing officer, Balloch, was specifically acting for the Commissioner, I urge 
that it was the duty of the Commissioner to keep himself constantly in- 
formed as to the monetary transactions of his disbursing officer, and to 
know exactly what he was doing with the public moneys which would 
be expended by him under the approval of the Commissioner. 

In presenting this subject 1 do not desire to be understood as insinu- 
ating or implying that the late Commissioner obtained, directly or in- 
directly, the slightest advantage from any seemingly unlawful withdrawal 
from the Treasury of public funds by his disbursing officer, because I 
do not believe anything of the sort, but I do mean to say that the sum of 
$820,576.28 is too large a sum to be taJcen out of the Treasury, and its absence 
explained in the manner the defense have undertaken to exi)lain it. These 
deficit balances from June, 1807, to August, 1871, inclusive, involved 
sums frequently ranging as high as two hundred thousand, three hundred 
thousand, Jour hundred thousand, five and six hundred thousand dollars 
at the end of each month, as will appear by reference to the accounts- 
current with the Second Auditor and records of the Treasurer's and 
Third Auditor's Offices. 



576 

Fifth. 

I now come to the consideration of the item of $73,048.40, vouchers, 
covering' time subsequent to the actual date of payment, and t'lerefore 
erroneous. [IJ.rhihit B^p. 3.) 

Reference must be had to tlu'. order of the court {iweniij- fifth flay\s 
proceed infis) that tlie letters referred to by the Secretary of \Var shall 
be considered, to ascertain the true nieanino- of this paragraph, which, 
in Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent's letter, (6\ p. 11, Uxhihit B,) is 
shown to menu vouchers for i)aymeut of expenses of Bureau, tiled, and 
credit claimed in one month, when payment had actually been made 
from otlier funds in a prior month for expenses incurred. 

In this conne(;tion I have to invite particular attention to Exhibit C^, 
which, in tabulated form, contains the allegations herein referred to. 

Mr. Cauldwell, from the Third Auditor's Office, swore to the correct- 
ness of the abstracts, {tu'enttj-cUjJith dai/.s proceedings,) although Mr. 
Harrison had also sworn to the same fact, {Uceniij -fifth day\s procccd- 
infjs) and reference must be had to the positive testimony of Assistant 
xVdjntant-General Vincent {thirty-thirds dajfa jjrocecdings) and Mr. 
oody ( thirtieth da jf.'i proceedings) for full explanation. 

Balloch has also testified a little on this point. {Ttrenty-seoond day^s 
proceedings.) 

As developed in evidence, the following facts are proven : 

On the 1st of January, 1871, the Commissioner for the Freedmen's 
Bureau had solely available for payjnent of expenses of the Bureau, re- 
maining from the appropriation, $1,391.08. 

This is shown by the accouijt-current of his disbursing oflicer, Bal- 
loch, rendered to the Treasury for the months of January, February, 
and March. [Mr. Caiddircirs testimony.^ tirenty-fifth daifs proceedings.) 

On the 24th day of IMarch he took u]) on his account-current for March, 
in addition to this $1,391.08, a war-warrant for $127,000, which was 
an approi)riation by Congress expressly for deficiencies ; in other words, 
to pay all the debts of the Bureau up to date which had been cou- 
tracited i)rior thereto. 

By the vouchers tiled in the Ti-easury between January 1, 1871, and 
IMarch 24, 1871, it appears the disbursing officer of the Commissioner 
had actually taken out of the Treasury $47,807.57 to pay the back debts 
of the Bureau. {Exhibit C«.) 

[t must be borne in mind, and it is in the testimony of Balloch, that 
all moneys Avhich came to his credit with the Treasurer of the United 
States, either bounty moneys to pay specific accounts of bounty claim- 
ants received by Balloch, as agent for the Commissioner, by checks 
from the pay department, or balances or appropriations for the sup- 
])ort of the Freedmen's Bureau, were simi)ly to his credit with such 
Treasurer ns public moneys. 

At that time the regulation had not been adopted by the Treasury- 
Department requiring checks, when drawn on the Treasury, to have 
notated on the face the appropriation u]K)n which drawn. 

Wlnit fund did Balloch use to his credit in the Treasury to make 
this payment of $47,807.57 ? 

The court is bound to take cognizance of the laws making appropria- 
tions for the su])])ort of the Bureau ; and the entire work of the Bureau 
had been discontinued on January 1, 18()!), except the educational work 
and the x>aymentsof bounties. (*SVy' act of discontinuance, before mentioned.) 

As to the "irregular retained-bounty'^ fund, that was already in- 
vested in bonds. 

As the regular appropriation was exhausted to the credit of Balloch, 



577 

except 81,301.08, the only fmuls that he ooiihl dniAV agninst were the 
funds triUKsfened to him as iii^ent for the Coniinissioner In- the pay 
(U'pnrtinent for the puviwse of p:iyin,i;' bounties to ooh)red sohliers spe- 
eihcally named; the sums thus Iransferred havinji- been tiansferred for 
a siHK'ific purpose under the resohition of March L'O. ISfJT. 

That the sum of $1:7,807.57 came from these funds is further evidenced 
by the question put to Balloch by the defense, where lie was asked — 

If voii took some of the bounty-inoiioy for a time and paid tliein, (clerks,) it enabled you 
to pav bonuties ! 

A. 'It did. 

Q. And thevetore did 3'ou take this course in tlio interest and for the benefit of tlie claini- 
auts for bounty ? 

A. I did. 

Q. As soou as you g-ot the proper money, did vou return this money to its proper fund ? 

A. I did. 

Q. Was there any loss to the Government by thus boiTOwing; for a time ? 

A, Not a dollar that I know of; it was a gaiu to the cierks. 

The vouchers themselves show that the money was not thus taken 
solely to pay clerks, but for all sorts of purposes. 

Tlie bounty-money was the ouly money that Balloch could have 
taken to make these payments of back debts. 

But the deficiency ai)propriation of 81l-*7,O00, available March 24, 
1871, was not enough to meet all the back debts of the Bureau, and was 
soon exhausted, because the {$17,807.57 had to be returned to the 
bounty- fund. 

So, from the middle of May, 1871, to tiie 30l:h of June, 1871, the ad- 
ditional sum of 8-5,240.83 was taken from the specitic bounty-fund, 
which was held in trust. as it were, in order to liquidate such back debts, 
the vouchers showini>- that all moiu\vs thus taken were aotually drawn 
from the Treasury. {ExhihitC^, ichich </in'ti in detail the i'otiehers, and 
irlien2)aid.) 

These two sums make up the $73,048.40 which were taken from oue 
appropriation (viz: fiu" payment ot bounties) to meet the expenses ot 
another appropriation, (viz : for general support of the Bureau.) {Tes- 
timony of Assistant Adjutant-Gcnend Vincent, thirtf/tltird day\s proceed- 
ings; testimoni/ of Mr. Moody, thirtieth d a y'' s proceed in ys ; tables A, B, C, 
i), and E, on pp. 13, 14, and 15, Exhibit H.) 

The act of Congress, on that subject, of February 12, 1868, {section 
2, chap. 8,) repealed so much of the old act of 1800 as gave the Presi- 
dent the power to transfer money appropriated for a particular brancli 
of a Department to another branch of exi)enditure in the same Depart- 
ment, and declared that — 

" Xo money appropriated for o)te purpose shall hereafter be used for 
any other purpose than that for which it is appropriated.'" 

Balloch says, substantially, he did this on his own responsibility after 
consultation; that the Commissioner may have had no knowledge of it. 

Ballocii says, (I quote the language,) " I used tem])orarily other fuiuls 
standing to my credit iu the Treasury for this pur[)ose ; did it 011 my 
own responsibility.'' 

Nevertheless it appears that the Commissioner approved all the ab- 
stracts coMtaining- the vouchers for these payments; and the question 
arises whether, if the Commissioner did not actually know of this di- 
version of public fluids from one appro[)riation to another, he would be 
chargeable for neglect of duty in not ascertaining iu what manner his 
disbursing officer was attenq-)ting to pay these back debts. 

It appears from the evidence that before payments were made Bal- 
loch had a conversation with him. 

The Commissioner proposetl to borrow the money of Jay Cooke & Co., 
37 H c 



578 

but Ballocli says, {twenty second day's proceed inf/s,) " I told hiin I 
tboni;htI could miuuii^e it without, and he said ' Very well ;' that is all 
be ever said, I believe, about it." 

What did he meau by saying that he could do without borrowiug' 
when there was only $1,391.98 to meet claims of $47,8(»7.57 ? 

It must not be forgotten that these claims were not all that had to 
be paid out of the deliciency appropriation, when available. 

Oil the contrary that appropriation was speedily exhausted, and there 
was still this $25,240.83 (part of the $73,048.40) "which had been taken 
from ''bounty" moneys and not yet returned. 

This subject and the one next to be discussed appear to have been 
brought to the attention of and came up for examination officially before 
the freedmen's branch, Adjutant General's Office, by reason of a commu- 
nication from a citizen named J. W. Shaw. {Mr. Moody^s testimony, thir- 
tieth d(iy''s proceedinys ; Assistant Adjutant -General Vincent^s testimony, 
thirty-third day^s proccedinys.) 

They are measurabh' connected. 

SIXTH. 

Now comes the question of the misapplication of $36,314.77. {See Ex- 
hibit C) 

The Commissioner, it appears, did not ask Congress for enough defi- 
ciency appropriation, because after the 22d of July, 1871, the deficiency 
appropriation having been some time exhausted, the Commissioner's dis- 
bursing officer had to expend $11,173.94 additional for back debts of all 
kinds. 

This made a total, with the $25,240.83 not yet returned to " bounty 
funds," of $30,314.77, which it is charged was deliberately misapplied. 

These moneys had to be charged to some account, and the $25,240.83 
had come out of " bounty" moneys and must be reiJhiced. {Mr. Moody., 
thirtieth day''s proceedinys ; Assistant Adjutant General Vincent, thirty- 
third day's proceedings ; Mr. Harrison, ticenty-Jifth day''s proceedings.) 

On July 22, 1871, the regular and specific apxiropriation for the sup- 
port of the Bureau for the ensuing year ending June 30, 1872, became 
available. 

That appropriation was for* specific purposes and applicable, as ap- 
pears by the terms of the act itself, to the support of the Bureau and 
l)ayment of the current expenses which might arise during the ensuing 
year. 

It was from this fund that the disbursing officer of the Commissioner 
took $25,240.83, and to that extent imbursed the " bounty" fund which 
was standing to his credit on the books of the Treasury, in order to 
make payment of settled claims of colored soldiers. 

He also took $11,173.94 additional from the ai)propriation for 1872, 
making in all $30,314.77, absolutely taken from and not replaced to the 
appropi-iation tor the year ending June 30, 1872. 

{See Exhibit C^, vouchers for debts contracted in 1807, 1868,1869, 1870, 
&c.) 

IS'ow, the law on this subject declares, {act of July 12, 1870, sect. 5): 

That all balances of appropriiitioiis contamed in the annual appropriation bills, and 
made sperijically for the service of any fiscal year and remaining unexpended at the expiration 
of suid fiscal year, shall only be applied to the. payment of expenses properly incurred during 
that year, or a fulfillment of contracts properly made icithin that year ; and such balances not 
netded for the said purposes shall be carried to the surplus fund : Provided, That this sec- 
tion shall not apply to appropriations known as permanent or indefinite appropriations. 

Skctiox 7. That it shall not be lawful for any Department of the Government to expend in 
any oni fiscal year any sum in excess of apjjropriations made by Congress for that fiscal year, 
or to incolre the Government in any contract for a future payment of money in cases of such 
appvo})riations. 



579 

TJndrr these acts the Secretary of the Treasury issned a circular {Ex- 
Mbit O, coniinued)ui which he said that "to comply properly with these 
provisions of law it is necessary that moneys and accounts pertaining" 
to one fiscal year shall not be blended with those beloniiing to another." 

It cannot with propriety be said or argued here that the accounts of 
the Bureau were so "blended^' that it was imi)0ssible to separate the 
approi)riations for 1871 from those for 1871*, for this reason, if for none 
other: Tlie Commissioner had applied to Congress for a deficiency a p- 
l)ropriatiou to ])ay back public debts, and Congress had given Iiiui the 
appropriation, ($127,000.) If he had not estimated for enough, or was 
not sufficiently conversant with the business of his oflice to Ivuow how 
much was needed, he should have gone to Congress a second time, even 
if he did have to go immediately after obtaining the $127,000, and 
say, " CentlemeD of the committee, I have made a irnstake. I need 
more nioney. I require another deficiency api)ropriation.''' 

One thing is perfectly plain, and that is. that the 83(v314.77 was for 
back debts, and not for the current expenses of the Bureau for the fis- 
cal year beginning June 30, 1871, and ending June 30, 1872. This is 
jyerfecili/ clear from an examinalion of Exhibit 0*", and out of this misap- 
plication has to a great extent resulted the confusion of records and their 
incomplete condition when turned over to the War department in conse- 
quence of the leant of the necessary clerical force ichich it has been shoicn 
the Commissioner had to discharge during that fiscal year (ending June 30, 
1872) for trant of the very funds, these thirty-six thousand and odd dollars, 
which he had talcen out of the money appropriated for the support of the 
Bureau for that year and used to pay bade debts. 

It appears that $13,800 {letter of Acting Assistant Adjutant-General 
Whittlesey, of General Howard^ s staff, thirty -third daifs proceedings) 
was considered a reasonable estimate to enable the Commissioner to put 
his records in proper condition for transfer to the War Department. But 
here were orer thirty-six thousand dollars which could have been used for 
that jyurjwse absolutely diverted, although the before-recited act of February 
12, b808. declared that '-no money appropriated for one purpose shall here- 
after be used for any other purpose than that for which it is appropriated^ 

The abstracts and accompanying vouchers for the expenditure of this 
sum were all filed in the Treasury, a]>proved by the Commissioner. 
{Mr. CaulKelVs (of Third Auditor's Office) testimony on Exhibit C^, twenty- 
eighth dayls proceedings.) 

When the Second Comptroller was asked his opinion on some of these 
vouchers which were handed to him, lie said : " 1 should say that that 
certainly should be })aid out of the appropriation for the previous year. 
The heading is January 19, 1871, though, the whole of it purports to 
have been paid on the 25tli of July, 1871." 

When asked the question, " Please refer to voucher No. 52, now handed 
you, and tell whether or not, in your judgment, as Second Comptroller, 
that voucher was properly payable from the appropriation for the fiscal 
year ejiding June 30, 1872, under the act to whicli your attention has 
been called ?" he answered : "From the date of this I should say it ought 
to have been out of the previous year. It is dated the 7th ot April, 
1871.'''' And so on. {Second Comptroller's testimony, twenty-sixth day- s pro- 
ceedings.) 

It may be intimated that the accounts of the Commissioner and his 
disbursing officer, coveiing these periods, may have been f^ettled and 
closed at the Treasury, but such settlements are never conclusive on 
judicial examinations. To assume otherwise would open wide the door 
to fraud, because it would only be necessary that the Auditor and Comp- 



580 

troller to a particular account should «ay, "I pass it," even when on its 
face the aecouut slu)wed i)ositively that it was uot payable out of a spe- 
cial api)ropriation, to allow the uiost tlagitious transactions to be thus 
taken heyoud jndicial iufjuiry. 

I make but one poiut more, and that is, that a.s the Gommisskmer ap- 
proved those payments, he must he held to be legally responsible for the con- 
sequences resultiny therefrom. 

That resi)onsibility, 1 submit, is one under the 99th of the Eules aud 
Articles of War, for conduct to the prejudice oi' good order and military 
discipline in violating the acts before recited applicable to this subject. 

SEVENTH. 

I Jiow come to the subject of the confusion of records, and their 
incomplete and defective condition when turned over by the late 
Commissioner to Assistant Adjutant General Vincent, to whom the 
immediate supervision and charge of the duties lately devolving on 
said Bureau was given in an order of June 27, 1872, from the War 
Department, with directions to look to the arrangement of the records 
and distribution of the duties, so that there will be the least delay in 
the future transaction of the business with the view of completing and 
closing it. 

The testimony of the latter officer is pertinent. 

As to the Bureau records thus transferred, he says, {thirty-third 
day''s proceedings :) 

One difficulty eiieoniitered was in connection with the bounty-register, which was found 
to be unreliable alter we had commenced payment to claimants, and which necessitated the 
stopijag'e of work until it was re-examined and compared with tlie records of the Second 
Auditor's Office. Other difficulties resulted from complaints beinj^ made, and upon refer- 
ence to the records as transferred we would have difficulty in tracing the case through 
them. This resulted in part from the records ot the disbursmg officer, letters received prior 
to .January 1, ]87l, not being entered in books of letters received. Of those letters there 
were some ll,OUUor 12,000 relating to matters of payment, making complaint that the 
bounty-moneys had not been received, and so on. They were simply, upon the receipt in' 
the Bureau, stamped with tlie date of receipt, not taken up in any way, so that if any one 
of the writers should subsequently refer to hic^ previous connnunication there was no way 
of tracing it. Those communications, about 12,000, will occupy, when arranged, some 45 
or 4G volumes, made of the ordinary adhesive tile, estimating 250 to a volume. Up to the 
present date there have been about 16 volumes which have been arranged and indexed. 

It was found, also, that when communications had been sent from the Bureau and acted 
upon, probably by the Secretary of War or other person, to whom sent for action, upon the 
return to tlie Bureau there would be no notation made of the action had. Then, too, the 
records. But previous to referring to that, I would say that these defects migiit be illus- 
trated by referiiug to the record, such as we bad, of what is known as the retained-bounty 
fund, the matter of the Mandeville defalcations, the matter of agents' fees, or fees of sus- 
pended agents and attorneys, and other cases which I do not now recall. Then, after the 
transfer, the difficulties came up as to the State records. An examination indicated that 
many of the records were missing ; and, owing to that, matters of business coming up 
could not be properly answered or referred to. 

He also says that^ 

The trouble in ascertaining information was in consequence of their [the records] not 
having been properly aud carefully arranged. In many cases there were no index-books, 
and some of them Avere found to be erroneously labeled, aud arranged loosely in other 
respects. 

A noteworthy instance of the defective and unreliable condition of 
the records of the disbursing office is found in the elibrt made by the 
freedmeu's branch, Adjutant-General's Office, to disburse the $726,842.11 
turned over on iliscoutin nance of the Bureau, in 1872, tliis sum repre- 
senting, as was supposed, the claims of four thousand eight hundred 
and fifty-eight colored soldiers, turned over at same time. 

I invite attentiou particularly to the testimony of Mr. Moody on this 
subject, [beginning in tiventy-ninth day^s proceedings.) 

It ajipears that some cases marked as " unpaid " on these bounty- 



581 

rejjisters and jacket-cases were sent out by Captain McMillan for 
payment before it was discovered that the registers in this respect were 
incorrect in over $1(),0()0, as the Second Auditor actually bad vouchers 
filed for such amounts. 

Work bad therefore to be Stopped and the cases recalled, and a 
thorouoh examination made in conjunction with the Treasury books to 
ascertain what cases ?rpr6' paid and what not. It took a month to make 
this examination, and resulted in showing- that there was a deficiency 
in the amount turned over to meet tbe cases actuaUy aicaiiinf/ payment 
of |2,S89.40. As this deficiency was traceable to Balloch, [Ballocli'H 
testimony, twenty-Jirst day's proceeclhKjs ; also, his letter on p. 48, Ux- 
Jiihit B,) and came down through General Howard and Major Brown, 
tbe inquiry seems i)ertinent as to why General Howard did not correct 
tbis error, and not transfer tbe duty of so doing to the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Ottice. 

Tbe letter of acting Assistant Adjutant-General Whittlesey, wbo 
signed himself acting Commissioner of the Bureau in General Howard's 
absence, (April 13, IS72,) to tbe chairman committee of House of Rep- 
resentatives, on freedmen's affairs, {thirty -third day's proceeclings,) 
seems to admit the point under discussion, as to the incom])l-te and de- 
fective condition of the records, because be therein asked for |13,8()0 
"for comi)leting tbe records and leaving thi^.m '\\\ proper condition iov 
future reference." 

If tbe-Commissioiu^r liad not before tbis tinic deliberately taken from 
tbe specific api)ro])riation for that year the sum of $oG,314:.77, to pay 
for schools and asylums and other expenses incurred be^fore that fiscal 
year began, he would, I submit, never have been under the necessity 
of asking, through his staff-officer Whittlesey, for tbis $13,800, or»of 
issuing bis order of March 19, 1872, that — 

On account of the want of funds it is necessary to suspend, in syreat measure, the opera- 
tions of this Bureau. The collection of claims cannot be continued. 

In cases settled-bounties will be paid as rapidly as possible, but, by reason of the discharge 
of mail}- agents and clerks, some delays will be unavoidable. {Thirty ■ second day^s pro- 
ceedings.) 

Just here I must allude to the assertion of my friend the Third Au- 
ditor, in bis communication of February 5, 1874, to the Second Comp 
troller, [twenty -eighth dayh proceedings,) where he says, in referring 
to this (liversion of $30,440.07, that the act of June 15, 1866, "seems to 
have escaped the attention of the honorable Secretary of War." This 
act of June 15, 1866, declaring, (16 Stat., p. 65, sec. 2) — 

That where accounts are rendered for expenditures for refugees or freedmen , under the 
approval a'ld sanction of the proper officers, and which shall have been proper and neces- 
sary, but cannot be settled for want of specific appropriations, the same may be paid out 
of the fund for the relief of refugees and fieediiien, on the approval of the Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Refugees and Freedmen. 

Unfortunately for theAuditor's theory, be seems not to have carefully 
read the honorable Secretary of V^ar's letter of January 24, 1874, {Mr. 
CauldwelVs testimony, twenty-eighth day^s proceedings,) to which he 
undertakes to reply, and in which is cited the subsequent act of Feb- 
ruary 12, 1868, (15 Stat., p. 36,) that- 
All acts or parts of acts authorizing such transfers of appropriations be, and the same are 
hereby, repealed, and no maney appropriated for one purpose shall hereafter be used for any 
other purpose than that for rchich it is appropriated. 

Also this other before-recited statute, (16 Stat., p.2ol, see. 5:) 

That all balances of appropriations contained in the annual appropriation bills, and made 
specifically for the service of any fiscal year, shall only be applied to the payment of expenses 



582 

properly incurred during that year, or to the fiiljilknent of contracts properly made zcithin that 
year : and such balauces not needed for the said purposes sball be carried to the surplus 
fund. 

UiK-ler tlie well-known rules of judicial interpretation of statutes, 
wliicli it i.s needless to enumerate, the act of June 15, 18GG, cited by the 
Third Auditor, is absolutely repealed by the snbsecpient lawt-% and the 
act ot June 14, 1800, (14 Stat., p. 04,) remains in all its original vigor. 

That act says : 

That if any disbursing officer of the United States * * * shall, fur any purpose not 
prescribed by laic, transfer or apply any portion of the public money intrusted to him, every 
such act shiill be deemed and adjudged an emhizzlement of llie money so * '^ used, * * 
tninsferred, or applied, and cvciy such net is licrvhy declared a felony. 

I invite attention particularly to the exhibits in evidence on thi** 
subject introduced with Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent's testi- 
mony, as sliowing the great number of missing records. (Exhibits Y% 
Z\ and A'.) 

In fact this court has seen witnesses come here and quote from re- 
tained papers and memorandum casli-books, &c., as to matters of infor- 
mation necessary to the War Department in the conduct of the back 
business of the Bureau. {Thirttj -fifth and thirtysixtli days'' proceed inrjs ; 
Also Balloeh, in his testimony, thirteenth, fourteenth, twenty-first, and thir- 
ty fourth days' proceedinijs ; and Exhiint E-^, and F-^.) 

Witnesses came iiere for the defense and testified (fcneraUy as to the 
condition of certain records some months before the Bureau was* discon- 
tinued, when their connection with it ceased, and others as to the adju- 
tant-general's ofitice of the Bureau or the educational branch, with 
which this investigation has had nothing to do. 

fiy the act of July 25, 1808, (15 Stat., p. 193,) it was provided — 

That the Commissioner of the Bureau shall, on the first day of January next, cause the 
said Bureau to be withdrawn from the several States within which said Bureau has acted, 
and its operations sliall be discontinued. But the educational department of the said Bureau, 
and the collection and payment of moneys due the soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their 
heirs, shall be continued as now provided by law until otherwise ordered by act of Congress. 

There seems to have been, I submit, no good reason, therefore, why 
in two years and a half the records in those discontinued branches of 
the Bureau should not have been perfected, or put, at least, in such 
shai)e as to be ready for retereuce. 

As to the bounty' branch, it was another matter. 

Keferriug to that branch of the Bureau called the " claim division," 
under Mr. J^rew, who testified for the defense, [thirty fifth day's pro- 
ceedings,) it seems hardly necessary for anything to be said, as Assist- 
ant Adjutaut General Vincent's testimony covered tlie point, wliich is in 
a nutshell. {Thirty-third day\'i proceedings.) 

The Bureau undertook to act as attorney for bounty claimants. 

It would call on the Adjutant-General's Olfice for inforination as to 
the military history of a claimant on whi(;h to base and perfect a claim. 
The claim wouhl tlien go to tlie Second Auditor's Office, and he would 
call on the Adjutunt-General's OfBce for information from the records by 
which to verify the same. 

Of course, if the Adjutant-General had previously given the same in- 
formation on whi(;h a claim could be based, the re{;ords were no longer 
valuable for verification of the claim. 

Information appears to have been furnished for some time until the 
impropriety ot the proceeding became manifest, because it was not in- 
formation requisite tow^ard the identification axuX payment o^',\ claimant by 
the Bureau after the Second Auditor had decided that a particular 



583 

soldier was entitled to certain bounty and had issued a certificate allow, 
ing- such claim. 

The propriety of this discontinuance of information was soon ren- 
dered manifest by the Kellogg matter. [Thirty third claifs irroceedings.) 

Information appears, however, to have been subsequently furnished 
by the Adjutant-General when specifically required for the identifica- 
tion and payment of a claimant. 

As a good illustration of the "defective" condition of therecords, I in- 
troduced in evidence a number of jacket cases of the late Bureau, for 
which vouchers had beeu filed in the Treasury, and credit claimed and 
shown by the books as "paid." {B((Jloch''s testimony^ fifteenth, sixteenth, 
and tirenty-seco)id days' proceedings ; Mr. Harmon's testimony, sixteenth 
day''s proceedings ; Mr. Moody^s testimony, thirtieth day^s proceedings ; 2Ir. 
Sini's testimony, seventeenth day'^s proceedings.) 

In three instances, at the foot of each jacket filed among paid cases, 
however, was a pencil memoranda, " Received back October 2, 1871." 

Balloch, having been communicated with on the subject, came down 
and turned over to Captain McMillan — 

Henry Davis's case §;^00 00 

James Ponder's case :^Ofl 00 

Mike Oliver's case ..- 216 SO 

Total 8J6 SO 

Two of these cases the Freedmen Branch, Adjutant-General's Office, 
discovered, and on Balloch being called iii^on, he, from his private cash- 
book, found the third. [Mr. Moody, thirtieth day' s proceedings.) 

They were not complaint cases, for the men had not then applied alleg- 
ing non-payment. 

Balloch explains this as follows: He »nys, (thirteenth day\s 2^>'0C£ed- 
ings,) •' I was relieved on the 11th of October, 1871, and was at that 
time actively engaged as snperintendent of the streets of this city and 
Georgetown; had 2,000 men or more in my employ,. * * * [Four- 
teenth day's proceedings.) Those checks went into the hands of my 
chief clerk, who was iuchaige of the oflace. That was after I had re- 
ceived my appointment as superintendent of streets, and did not visit 
the office very often, and he took up the amount regularh' on the cash- 
book. He omitted to call my attention to the fact tliat the money had 
been returned." 

Balloch [fourteenth day' s proceedings) says he assumed these duties 
July lo, 1871, and that the Commissioner knew he had accepted the 
appointment, and had urged him to so accept. 

1 submit, therefore, that the Commissioner must be considered as tech- 
nically, legally, and morally the responsible person for this neglect to 
turn over those funds when the Bureau was discontinued. 

I invite particular attention to Mr. Moody's testimony, [thirtieth 
day^s proceedings,) where he speaks of several cases — Julius Jones, 
Kichard Long, William Austin, George Taylor, John Frazer, and Jack- 
son Doyle — aggregating -SI, 170.16, where, on examination of it. the funds 
to pay these colored claimants is traced back into the hands of the dis- 
bursing officer by the general records, although the money-records show 
prior i)ayment. 

These are a few of the cases offered in illustration, which have come 
up in current business. 

EIGHTH. 

The next item of charge is that General Howard did, without 



584 

autliority of law, order, approve, and sanctiou the conversion of public 
funds intrusted to liim h} a resolution of Congress ai^proved ^Marcli 129, 
18G7, ;ind thereby directed " to be held in safe custody " * * * " and 
disbursed under the same rules and regulations governing other dis- 
bursing officers of the Army," into United States bonds of the face- 
value of 8250,000. (actual value, $279,375,) and did order, approve, and 
sanction the niisapi)lication and misuse of the interest accruing thereon 
in the sum of $4,777.71, ($3,041.71 + $1,730.00,) in violation of acts of 
Congress. 

Ballocb swears {ticcnf}/-^iirst day's proceedinf/s) that he made the in- 
vestment under the direction of General Howard, Commissioner of the 
Bureau, and that lie made the investment in his official capacity as chief 
disbursing officer of the Bureau. The transaction became a subject of 
investigation, as follows : 

Octoher 4, 1871. The" Secretary of the Treasury invites the atten- 
tion of the Secretary of War to this matter, and that he had directed 
an account to be rendered of all interest collected thereon. 

Inclosed was the report of the Acting Second Auditor of September 
30, 1871, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and his own opinion as to 
these irregularities. 

There were also inclosed copies of Balloch's accounts-current for 
June, July, and August, 1871, of "moneys received and expended on 
account of pay, bounty, and prize-money due colored soldiers under the 
resolution ot March 29, 1867." 

Two things are noticeable here : 

Fir.st. That Balloch's original accounts-current 'for these months re- 
ported $520,974.07 in cash in the Treasury, when an investigation showed 
only $240,974.07 so deposited, the remainder of the amount being in 
Governnient bonds. 

Second. That on the Second Auditor calling liis attention to this large 
discrepancy, Balloch stated, in explanation, that he held in registered 
bonds oi" tlie United States $200,000, dei)osited in the Treasury, and in 
cmipon bonds; $50,000, deposited, as he alleged, in the Isfational Safe 
Deposit Company of Washington. 

Pursuing the correspondence, on October 9, 1871, the Secretary of 
War notiiles the Se(;retary of the Treasury that he has called upon the 
Conimissioner to relieve Balloch as disbursing officer. 

On January 22, 1872, General Howard makes a report to the Secre- 
tary of War, by which it a])pears, from Balloch's statement to him, 
Howard, of date October 12, 1871, that he, Balloch, had received 
89,0(33.22 in interest, {thirfy-fonrfh day\s proceedings,) corroborated by 
Balloch's account-current of October 12, 1871, on page 18 of Exhibit 
B. {Identified by Mr. CanldweU, thirty-third day's proceedings.) 

Prior to this statement of Ballo(;h, the Second Auditor, on October 
6, \S11, {thirty-fourth day's proceedings,) \r.\i\ ciilled on him for a state- 
ment, and on October 11, 1871, the day before Balloch accounted to the 
Conimissioner, he made a report to the Second Auditor. 

The two reports are on the following items wholly irreconcilable : 

October 11 October 12 

report. report. 

Interest received •- $3,r)20 13 l|9, 0r>3 22 

■ Double pavmeiits made .•5,041 76 J, 730 00 

Miscellaneous .-- 4HG 90 

As Balloch turned over to General Howard, on October 12, 1871, 
$6,840.32 interest, {General Howard's report January 22, 1872, thirty- 



585 

fourth flaifs proceed ings^) it is to be iiifened that liis report of the day be- 
fore to the Second x\uditor was not (correct. Another noticeable feature is 
that in the statement of second i)a;vnient to bounty chiiniauts accom- 
panying this report of October 11, 1871, of Balloch, for $3,041.70, there 
is not one name the same as in the account-current for October 12, 1871. 

There is considerable corresi)ondenceon the part of the War Depart- 
ment {fhirti/-fourfh r/rt?/'.s proceedings) in the effort to obtain a report or 
return on this subject. The last coiresi)ondence was of date January 
2, 1871, from the honorable Secretary of War to General Howard, {Ex- 
hibit B.ipart 2, p. 6.) and the latters rej)ly on January 5, 1871. 

No vouchers ictre, hoivever, rendered in to the Treasury, by Balloch, 
through General Hoivard, until Monday, April 27, 1871, during the pro- 
gress of this investigation, the abstract accompanying the vouchers being ap- 
proved by General Howard. 

The account does not appear to have been yet audited. 

{Mr. Caulda-elVs testimony, thirty fourth day\s proceedings.) 

Thus the AVar Department ai)pears to ha\'e secured, at last, for audit 
and inspection, some kind of "return or accounting for the expenditure 
of the interest-money. 

The defense has introduced the Second Comptroller to show that he 
sanctioned the investment of these public funds in bonds, as if any 
functionary of the Government could give a valid authority to do any- 
thing contrary to law. 

The sub-treasuiy act of August G, 1840, for the collection, safe-keep- 
ing, transfer, and disburseuient of the public revenue, says, {sec. 10, 
Q IStat.,p.(J-6) : 

That till officers and other persons, charged hy this act, or any other act, with the safe-keeping, 
transfer, and dishitrsctnents of the public moneys " * * are hereby required to keep an accu- 
rate entry of each sun received, and of each payment or transfer ; and that if any one of the 
said officers * * * shall convert to his own use, in any icuq whatever, or shall use, by 
icay of investment in any kind of propcity or inercaandisc, or shall loan icith or irithout in- 
terest, ur shall dtpnsit in any bank, or shall exchange for other funds, except as allowed by this 
act, any portion of the public moneys intrusted to him for snfe-kteping, disbursement, transfer, 
or for any other purpose, every such act shall be, deemed and adjudged to be an embezzlement of 
so much of the said moneys as shnll be thus taken, converted, invested, used, loaned, deposited, 
or exchanged, which is hereby declared to be a felony ; and any failure to pay over or to produce 
the public moneys intrusted to such person shall be held and taken to be prima-facie evidence of 
such embezzlement. 

The twentieth section provides that no exchange of funds shall be 
made bj- any disbursing officer, and when drafts are received shall 
make his payments in the moneys received thereon. 

The twenty-first section of i:he same act declares — 

* * that no officer of the United Stales shall, either directly or indirectly, sell or dispose 
to any person, or persons, or corporations, zchatsoever, for a preminin, any Treasury-note, 
draft warrant, or other public security, not his private property, or sell or dispose of tlie avails 
or proceeds of such note, draft, wai rant, or security in his hands for disbursement, without mak- 
ing of such premium and accotinling therefor by charging the same in Ids accounts to the credit 
of the United States; and any officer violating this section shall be forthwith dismissed from 
office. 

Tiie court will bear in mind that this money invested in bonds by 
Balloch, under General Howard's express direction, was bounty-money 
received by him from the Pay Department, to j)ay s})ecific bounties due 
colored soldiers — the receii)t of Balloch being " /"or General Hoivard.''^ 

{tSec Exhibit R, and attached form.) 

The court will also bear in mind that this money was public money 
until it reached the hands of the colored clainnint or his heir, and that 
under the resolution of JNIarch 21), 1807. it was to be held and disbursed 
under the same rules and regulations governing other disbursements by dis- 
bur sing officers. 



586 

The act of Congress, heretofore re(;ite(l, of June 14, 1800, (14 Stat., p. 
63,) is even more stringent than the act of L84(>, foi'it makes it — 

'' * the duty of every disbuisiup^ officer havings any public money intrusted to him for 
disbursement, to deposit the same, * * * f^jni to draw for the same only as it may be 
required for paymtmtS to be made by him in pursuance of law. * ^ * 

Sk<;. 2. That if any disbursinjr oiijcer of the UnitHd States shall, * * * for any pur- 
pose not prescribed bylaw, icitkdraw from the Trcisurcr, or any assistant treasurer, or any 
authorized depository, or shall, for any purpose not prescribed by law, transfer or ap])ly any 
portion of the public money intrusted to him, ep'-r// such act shall be deemed an'l adjudged 
an eiiihi'zzlcment of the money so deposited, converted, used, * * * withdrawn, trans- 
ferred, or applied, and every such act is hereby declared a felony. * * * 

It was not prescribed by latv that money whicli had been transferred 
by the Pay, Department to General Howard for a i)artichlar purpose, 
viz, ])ayment of certain bounties, shouhl be diverted from that purpose 
in oi'der that a fund might be obtaimnl to pay accounts for printing, and 
transportntion, clerical .services, defectives, and second payments to })onnty 
claimants, where first payments, from some cause or other, had been made 
to icroncj parties. 

His duty was to pay tlie nioney over to tlie soldiers to whotn it be- 
longed. It is clear that no disbursing ottieer has ever imd leyal author- 
ity to use ])ublic funds in excess of the amounts a])prf)priated by Con- 
gress for specific purposes, and yet, in effect, this proceeding was iden- 
tically such a one. 

The money transferred to General Howard by the Pay Department 
was in the Treasury, and I submit, that as this money was recpiired by 
law to be held and disbursed under the same rules and regtdatious as 
governed other disbursing officers of the Army, nothing but an act of 
Congress could have authorized the withdraical of this money for pur- 
pose of investment, even if the investment was in Government bonds. 

Even the " irregular retained" bounty-fund which came into General 
Howard's hands, admittedly from outside sources, received the attention 
of Congress in a special act, authorizing [March -, 18G7) its investment 
in United States bonds. 

The acts of January 31, 1823, section 2, (3 Stat., p. 723,) and July 17, 
1862, (12 iSiat,,p. 593,) concerning the disbursement of public money 
and to [)rovide for the more prompt settlement of the ac(;ounts of dis- 
bursing officers, provide substantially, (one being amendatory of the 
other) — 

That every officer or accent of the United States, who shall receive public money which, 
he is not autliorized to retain as salary, pay, or emolument, shall render his accounts 
monthly instead of quarterly as heretofore ; and such accounts, with the vouchers neces- 
sary to the correct and prompt settlement thereof, shall be rendered direct to the proper ac- 
couutinf^ officer of the Treasury, and be mailed or otherwise forwarded to its proper address 
withiii ten days after the expiration of eacii successive month. 

And in case of the non-receipt at the Treasury of any accounts within a reasonable and 
proper time thereafter, the officer whose accounts are in default, shall be required to furnish 
satisfactory evidence of having- complied with the provisions of this act ; and fur auy de- 
fault on his part the delinquent officer shall be deemed a defaulter, and be subject to all the 
penalties prescribed by the sixteenth section of the act of Aup:ust sixth, ei>ihteen luuidred 
and forty-six, to provide for the better organization of the Treasury, and for the collection, 
safe-keepincr, transfer, and disbiufemcnt of the public levenue : Provided, That the Sec- 
retary of the Treasury may, if in his opinion the circumstaTices of the case justify and re- 
quire it, extend the time hereinbefore prescribed for the rendition of accounts : And proridei 
furtlier. That nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrain the heads of any of the 
departments from requiring such other returns or reports from the officer or agent subject to 
the control of such heads of departments as the public interests may recjuire. 

The suggestion of the Second Comptroller that General Howard had 
a right to make investment in bomls of bounfy-inouey turned over to 
bim for special disbursement, because it was, in the technical language 
of the Auditor's office, termed a "i-e^fted" account, in other words a 



587 

debt to a coIoiyhI soldier ax^knowledged to be good, {fJthiy-seventJi (lay\s 
proeecdings.) has been shown ah-ead.v to be contrary to biw. 

TLeSni)reme Court of the Lluited States, however, in ISoO, (3 Fctcrs, 
U. iS. Rep., pp. 12, 21,) decided that— 

When money of the United States has been received by one public a^eut from another 
public agent, whether it was received in an official or private cajjacity, tki;re can be, no 
doubt that it was received to the use of the United States ; and they may maintain an ac- 
tion ag-ainst the receiver for the same. 

The then Attorney-General, Mr. Berrien, in submitting the case to the 
court, urged the point that — 

If the money of the United States is advauced by one agent of the Government to 
another, this is prima facie, by necessary implication, an advance to the use of the Goi'ern- 
iiicnt. 

It is true the Commissioner was tlie payee of the money, and the Army 
Paymaster the payor by check, each l)eing agents of the Government, 
and each in turn required to account for the disbursement. 

Until the money actually reached the chiinumt it was public money, 
and could not be touched by any process of garnishee from a creditor 
of a claimant. 

The point is so clear that I submit whether or not the Coininissiouer 
in this whole transaction violated the provisions of the o9th At'ticle of 
War as to misapplication of public moneys intrusted to him. 

I have but another point to invite attention to, in this connection, and 
that is that Balloch swears [thirtii -fourth days proceedingH) that on the 
day alter he was relieved, he, on October 12, 1871, rendered almost 
identical accounts-current with vouchers to General Howard, with 
vouchers for this $250,000 bond interest expenditure, with those tiled by 
him April 27, 1874. [See ExMhit.G\) 

The inquiry is pertinent why General Howard did not meanwhile 
file those accounts. 

NINTH. 

The next item of charge is that General Howard did, without author- 
ity of law, order, api)rove, and sanction the conversion of |)ublic funds 
intrusted to him by a resolution of Congress ap[)roved March 29, 1807, 
and thereby directed " to be held in safe <;ustody and disbursinl under 
the same rules ami regulations governing other disbursing ofticers of 
the Army," into United States bonds of the face value of $300,000, 
{aetual value $334,875,) and did order, approve, and sanction the mis- 
application and misuse of the interest accruing thereon in the sum of 
$19,14(>.57, in violation of acts of Congress. 

Balloch swears he made the investment {tiventy first day^s proceedings) 
as chief disbursing officer " under the direction of General Soivard, Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen^s Bureau.'''' 

This transaction rests on substantially the same grounds as the 
$250,000 bond transaction, and the same rules of law ap})ly. 

It is noticeable, however, that nothing ap[)ears in evitkMice to show 
ivhen these several bonds were purchased — merely the discovery as to 
the $2.50,000 bond matter in August, 1871. 

Balloch says, {tweuty-Jirst doy''s pi oceedings :) 

At the time I was relieved from duty I made up the account (for the $19,446.57 interest) 
and left the account-current and vouchers with General Howard to file in the Treasury, in the 
Third Auditor's Office. He mislaid them. I supposed they were there until six weeks or two 
months ago, irhen I ascertained they were not, and I filed my duplicate copies in the Treasury. 

{iSee Exhibit 6'' of October 31., 1871, /Vow? the Commissioner, ordering Bal- 
loch ti> render him the accounts.) 

Mr. Moody says, {thirty-second day''s 2)roc€edings :} 

There is nothing upon the records of the Freedmen's Bureau that I have been able to find 
touching upon this transaction whatever. 



588 

Mr. Canldwell, of tlio Third Auditor's Office, swears that this interest 
account was rendered to the Treasury by letter dated December 31, 
1873, and received January 2, 1874, and that the accoini>anyiiig vouchers 
were approved by General Howard, in his (Cauldwell's) office, on the 
afternoon of January 2, 1874, or on the niornino- of January 3, 1874. 
{Mr CanlckcelVs tcsthnony, twoiti/scventh daifs proceedings.) 

General Howard, therefore, evidently weif,t to ]\Jr. CauldwelVs office for 
that express purpose. 

The items of alleged expenditure of the $19,440.57 were — 

Re-inibiirsenient for double payment of bounties $1 , 338 56 

School-houses and asylums 16, 652 25 

Salaries of ag^ents and clerks 1 , 350 00 

Stationery and priutint^ 105 76 

These were clearly in excess of the appropriations-by Congress, either 
regular oi- deficiency appropriations. 

In other words, as Congress had not ap[»roi)riated as much money for 
the Bureau as tlie Comniissiouer may have desired, he took this means 
of obtaining from the Government the desired sum, by, for the time 
being, holding back the payment to a large number of colored soldiers 
of their just claims, for which money had been transferred to him ; and by 
withdrawing such money from the Treasury to invest in United States 
bonds, he obtained from the United States a fund to use at his dis- 
cretion. 

To point out the illegality of this transaction more clearly, I have 
only to say that if General Howard, instead of being a Government dis- 
bursing officer, was the trustee of the colored soldiers, whose moneys for 
settle<l claims he thus withdrew from the Treasury, he should have 
accounted to those soldiers 2^^o ''^'^<'f for such interest-money and de- 
livered it to them, under the well-known rule — 

That a trustee must not avail himself of his fiduciary character for any personal benefit. 
His fundamental duty is to do his utmost for the ces(»/i ^we Jrjtsf ; ami every advantage 
which he appropriates to himself must be acquired by a dereliction from that duty, 

{See Adams on Equity, sees., 59, 60; Ux parte Lacey, 6 Vesey, 625.) 

Mr. Moody says the iirst information the War Department had rela- 
tive to this investment {thirty-second tlay\s proceedings) was contained 
in Balloch's statement of De(!ember 29, 1873. {Ex. i>, j^ari 2, p. 5.) 

On January 2, 1874, the Secretary of War called on General Howard 
{Mv. B, part 2, p. 6) for information and report as to these bond trans 
actions. 

The reply of General Howard, of January 3, 1874, contained Balloch's 
report of same date. 

This reply and report were transmitted by the Secretary of War to 
Congress January 5, 1874, and i)ublished in the newspapers, among 
others the Baltimore American, on Januarys, 1874, in which among the 
items was the <>ne for " schools and asylums," $16,652.25, appeared. 
{Mr. Moody'' s testimony, thirtieth day's proceedings.) 

Its resemblance to what is termed the "Shepherd voucher," {Exhibit 
F^,) already previously filed in the Treasury, induce^d Mr. Moody to 
call the attention of Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent to it ; and he 
then went to see the Secretary of War about it. 

At this point commenced a renewed effort to obtain information as to 
the accounts for these exi)enditiues by a re})ort or return from General 
Howard, under the old acts before recited of 1823 and 1802. 

The Third Auditor was also called on by the Secretary of War to 
make report under the 5th section of the act of March 3, 1817, chap. 45, 
whereby it is made " the duty of said Auditor to make such report on 



589 

the business assigned to him as- the Secretary of War may deeui neces- 
sary, and require for the service of his Department." {Mr. CauldwelVs 
testimony, ticenty-eighth day\s proceediuys.) 

Upon exaujinatioii it appears from the evidence {twenty-seiH'.nth day''s 
lyroceedinys) that in April, 1871, Balioch rendered to the Treasury liis 
accounts for March, 1871, in whicli api^ears the voucher of Alexander 
R. Shepherd & Bros., {Exhihlt E\) lor $16,052.25, and the abstract 
accompanying the voucher is approved by General Howard as follows: 

" 1 have examined the vouchers noted on the above ahstracf, and hereby 
approve the pay^nent of the sameJ^ 

This voucher was for putting a heating apparatus in Clark Hall, a 
dormitory of Howard University, an incorporated company, incori)orated 
under the laws of the United States. [Tu-enty-sixth day\s testimony.) 
[iSee also Balloeh^s testimony in ticenty-secoiid day'' s proceedings.) 

Each voucher, both triplicate und original, shows on its face the date 
of payment to the Messrs. Shepherd, only that one of them is noted as 
"paid in currency," and the other enumerates specitic "checks" as the 
mode of payment. 

Mr. Thomas M. Shei)herd, (twenty-sixth day''s proceedings,) however, 
swears he received only the one suuj of 110,052.25, and that the voucher 
F^ is a triplicate obtained from him by Balioch, on the plea " that one 
had been misplaced, or something of the kind." 

Balioch swears {twenty-second day'S proceedings,) that General How- 
ard was a 'charter-member in the formation of the Eloward Univer- 
sity cor[)oration. 

Also, that he has acted as president of the University since April 0, 
1809. (xS'ee the act of July 5, 1838, sec. 31, that officers of the Army 
shall not be allowed to engage in the .service of incorporated companies.) 
Also, that he has been one of the trustees, and that of the executive com- 
mittee General Howard was ex officio chairman, and tluit he was pres- 
ident when the expense for the heating apparatus was incurred, and 
when the voucher therefor was first tiled. 

He has also sworn that " when repairs were to be made, (to the Uni- 
versity,) the agent in charge of the buildings would make his applica- 
tion to the executive committee of the University trustees for suchre{)airs; 
they would apply, they would lay the nuitter before the Commissioner 
of the Freedmen's Bureau, and if such repairs could be pro^x-rly made 
from the educational fund of the Buieau, they would be nuule from that 
fund ; if not, from the funds of the University." 

The matter he says, substantially, had to undergo the administrative 
scrutiny of the executive committee. 

General Howard, in his formal statement to the conrt, urges sub- 
stantially that the error or fraud as to this voucher was in rendering it 
to the Treasury in the accounts of 31 arch, 1871. 

The abstract ai)[)roved then by him {produced in court by Mr. Cauld- 
wellj tiventy-fifih day^s proceedings) comprised three hundred and seventy- 
nine vouchers, of which none amount to more than about $0,000, except 
the Shepherd voucher, and but eight or ten over $1,000. 

But why should the account not have been rendered then ? The 
money had actually been paid some time before, and withdrawn from 
the Treasury. 

The Commissioner shonld have known it, and that it was olJligatory 
to render accounts as soon as practicable, after any expenditure of 
public money, under requirements of statute. 

Further, it was proper that the account should then have been ren- 
dered, because if it was legally payable out of any appropriation what- 



• 590 

ever, it was the rjcncral appiopriation for tlie Bureau, and not from 
the specijic ai)i)ropriati()u to pay houutk'S due particular colored soldiers. 
{See voucher No. IX), Exhibit C^,7chere the original of thiti Shepherd voucher 
Jimt appears in this case.) 

It re(]uires a vivid iiiia<iinatiou to conjecture wlvdtimmediatelKmtfit a 
lieatin^ii;- apparatus in Clark Hall (m)u1(1 l)o to colored soldiers, who were 
waiting for their money, which the accounting officers of the Treasury 
had decided to he due. 

But Balloch swears {twenty-first daifs proceedings) he rendered to 
the Conimissioner, when ho was relieved iu October, 1S71, the original 
accounts for the expenditure of this $19,446.57, of which he (Balloch) 
sul)se(piently filed triplicates in the Treasury, January 2, 1874. 

What did the Commissioner do with those accounts ? Why were they 
not then (187L) rendered to the Treasury? 

I infer that this matter must have come before General Howard iu 
several ways. 

1st. When the agent of the University submitted to the executive 
committee the question of obtaining a heating apparatus for Clark 
Hall, or to the president. 

2d. When he passed upon the queslion of propriety of payment from 
public funds, as Commissioner of the Bureau, and ordered such pay- 
ment. 

3d. When he certified and approved the abstract containing voucher 
for the payment already made. 

4th. When Balloch delivered to him his interest accounts, October 
1871, containing the duplicate origiiuU pi this very vou(;her. 

5th. When he, General Howard, went to the Treasury and deliber- 
ately approved the payment a second time, (January 3, 1874.) 

Balloch, in his letter to the Third Auditor, of February 26, 1874, 
{twenty-firU daifs proceedi/uos.,) says there was a mistake, and that he 
intends to examine and discover how this mistake arose. But if his 
business with the Treasury was transacted by checlcs, and he did noth- 
ing but a check business, if I may so express it, how is it possible that 
such a discrepancy as $16,652.25, could have arisen? He testifies be- 
fore this court that $19,446.57 was the actual amount of interest which 
he collected on the $334,875 bond transaction; no more, no less. But 
when called on to account for it, almost the gross sum is included in 
one item, in one expenditure, for " school-houses and asylums," by a 
duplicate, or, rathei', triplicate Shepherd voucher. 

1 submit that, if he has testifietl correctly as to the amount of interest 
he received, it is a most remarkable and wonderful coincidence if he 
actually expended exactly $16,652.25, which he represents he ex))ended, 
from the sum of $19,446.57 aside from the so-called IShepherd voucher. 
It is too larf/e a sum for a dishursinfj officer to be unable to keep track of., and 
the interest lie received on the bonds is easily and readily determinable. The 
entire circumstance is significant — the keeping back of interest, account 
until it was forced out, as it were, and the fact that these figures are not 
round numbers, but specific figures. It is for the court to determine 
whether there was really a mistake ; whether the money is not actually 
in the hands of sonu^body, and not accounted for, because, if the Shep- 
herd voiucher was put in ibr the purpose of claiming credit a second 
time for one expenditure of the money, then an ottense was committed. 

I invite ])articular attention to Balloch's testimony in this connection, 
in the twenty-first day's proceedings. 

This "heating apparatus" was an expensive purchase, and the whole 



591 

subject nnist, if slig'lit care and diligence were used, have received the 
(joiiiiiiissionei's attention. 

The only plea on wliicli he can come here and say that the voncber 
shonld not have been tiled in March, 1871, wonld be that the money had 
not been paid. But it would be contrary to ordiuary business Iransac- 
tions that a merchant would consent to remain two years and three 
months without payment. 

I submit, theretoie, to the consideration of the court, whether or ju^t 
General Howard is properly chargeable under the act of March li, 18(33, 
"for nuxkiug or causing to be made, or i'or presenting, or ciiusiug to be 
presented, for approval by the Third Auditor and Second Comptroller, 
a claim upon or against the United States, and against the Treasnry 
Department thereof, of $10,(>52.25, knowing such claim to be false, ii(;ti- 
tioiKs, or fraudulent, or for obtaining, or aiding in obtaining tlie aj>[)roval 
of such claim, by making or using a false voucher, entry, account, claim, 
statement, or certiticate, knowing the same to contain any false or fraudu- 
lent statement or entry. 

It he had no '^ laioicledgc^^ on this subject, then I invite attention to 
The doctrine of " negligence" as I have described it, and to the [)rovis 
ions of the ODth Article of War applicable to the subject. 

This c(mrt has to discover whether any offense has been committed? 
and if so, whether General Howard is morally, technically, or legally 
responsible therefor. 

There is another branch of this subject of the $19,446.57 interest 
to which I desire to invite attention. It is the apparent reluctance of 
General Howard tofnrnish the information desired by the honorable 
Secretary. 

The following synopsis of correspondence will show my meaning: 
{thirty-fourth daifs proceedings.) 

]. January 17, 1874. The AdjiitHtit-Geneial, by direction of tlie Secietavy of War, 
writes to General Howard, referring to liis (Howard's) communication of January 5, 1874, 
(Exhibit B, part second,) and stating that tlie $19, 446. .57 was not taken up on the " refu- 
gees and freedmen's fund," and accounted for, and directing a statement in detail of the 
expenditures. (See thirty-fourth day's proceedings.) 

i. January 'M, lt^74. The Secretary of War invites General Howard's attention to this 
letter of January 17. 

3. February 4, 1874. General Howard, by indorsement, refers these letters to Ballocli for 
the desired information. 

4. February 4, 1 874. General Howard acknowledges to the Secretary of War of these letters. 

5. February (i, 187,4. Balloch returns these letters of January 17 and 31, to General Howard, 
declining to n^ake any further connnunication on the subject, but incloses a list of claimants 
who were " re-imbursed for double payments of bounties."' 

fi. February 9, 1874. General Howard lorwards these papers and list to the Secretary of 
War. 

7. February I ', 1874. The Secretai'y of War again calls on General Howard to furnish the 
information demanded in previous letter of January 17, 1874, as to expenditures in detail, 
vouchers, »5i:c , for the accrued interest, stating that if the interest has been accounted for, it 
will be an easj' matter to comply with the order hereby conveyed, and that if it has not been 
accounted for, then directing the amount to be at once deposited. 

8 February \'i, 1874. General Howard to the Secretary of War, acknowledging receipt of 
this Febriuiry II letter, and regretting he is unable to procure the desired information 

9. Fcbruarii 12, 1874. The Third Auditor to General Howard, in reply to his (Howard's) 
of the same date, asking whctlier Bulloch has taken up and accounted fur the .|19,446.57 interest, 
and replying that the amount has been taken up and accounted Jor by lialloch on vvuchcrs 
approved by Geiicrai Hoicard. 

JO. Fehruary 13, 1874. Indorsement of General Howard^ forwarding to the Secretary of 
War the Third Auditor's reply. 

The court knows that the whole interest account filed January 2,1874, 
is contained in a very few vouchers, and I base my foregoing remark 
on the reply of^ General Howard of I'ebruary 12, 1874, regretting that 
he is unable to supply the desired information to the Secretary. 

As he had deliberately gone to the Treasury January 2 or 3 to ap 



# 592 

prove tliose very aeconiits, be fshould certainly have kiiowu they were 
tliere, and what he was approving-. 

M\\ bloody ex[)hiins why the War Department did not know the ac- 
connts had been tiled. {Thirty-second dayls proceedings.) 

Baboch had said in his letter of Jannaiy 3, 1S74, [Exhihit B., part 2., 
2). 8,) that the amount $19,440.57 was a(;(;()unte(l for under the " refugees 
and freedinen's fund," and an examination of the Bureau records had to 
be made to as(;ertain the truth of the statement. 

Finally, w lien it was ascertained that vou<hers had actually been tiled 
in the I'leasury, application was made by the Secretary of War, Febru- 
ary 14, for official coi)ies, preparatory, I presume, to official action. 

The defense introduced in testimom/ a complimentary letter from the 
Hon. Secretaiy of War, of June 139, 1872 

But two points suggest themselves, if it was introduced to influence 
the court. 

1st. That it does not speak of "ability" in the administration of 
" Bureau affairs ; " and 

LM. That it was written before the alleged developments. 

The defense introduced witnesses to the alleged " due diligence and 
care of the Comuiissiouer," and I do not doubt that he did use the 
greatest caie and diligence in the transaction of certain portions of his 
duty, such as the educational work ; but a man may be very careful in 
one matter and chargeable with gross negligence in another. 

The wliole trouble in this case has arisen from the manner in. which 
the disbursing accounts were kept ami disbursements made. 

They have been shown to be quite, if not wholly, unreliable, and to- 
day, from the past records of the liureau in the Adjutant Generars 
Office, it is quite impossible to determine whetlier or not a claimant has 
been j)aid. 

Geneial Howard has been defended by able and learned counsel. 

He, himself, has received the thanks of (Congress for service in battle, 
and his reputation is national. 

These reasons, however, were but additional ones why he should have 
used extraordinary care, prudence, and diligence in the performance of 
his responsible duties. 

I have, in conclusion, to thank the court for its attention to my un- 
avoidably extended remarks. 

Upon the conclusion of the argument of the judge -advocate. 
The Counsel for the Acctsed said : 

I wish to call the attention of the court to certain statements of 
the judge-advocate about the Freedman's Ijank, also in regard to the 
remarks u[>on deticits at the first of the months, and to certain state- 
meuts about the thirty six thousand dollars and the seventy -three thou- 
sand dollar matters. 

The President of the Court said : The menjbers of the court will 
take notice that their attention has been called to these matters. 

The judge-advocate may consiiler the case now in the hands of the 
court. 

The court then, at 4 o'clock and 25 minutes p. m., adjourned until to- 
morrow, Friday, May 8, 1874, at 11 o'clock a. m. 



593 

FCRTY- FIRST DAY. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, 
Washington, D. C, 1816 F street, 

Friday, Mmj 8, 1874—11 a. m. 
The court met pursuant to the foregoiug orders and adjournment. 

Present . 

1. Gen. Wm. T. Sherman, U. S. A. ; 

2. Maj. Gen. Irwin McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. ]\I. C. Meigs, Q. M. Gen. U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. Geo. W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Coi. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A.; 

7. Col. X. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, tl. S. A. ; 

Major Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. x\., the accused, was also present. 

The minutes of the proceedings of Tuesday, May 5, 1874, and Thursday, 
May 7, 1874, were read and ajiproved. 

The court was then cleared for deliberation, and remained in closed 
session until 7.15 o'clock p. m., when, on motion, the court adjourned 
until 11 a. m. to-morrow. 



FORTY- SEC0:ND BAX. 

Court of Inquiry Rooms, No. 1816 F Street, 

WasJmigton, D. C, 31ay 9, 1874 — 11 a. m. 

The court met pursuant to the foregoing orders and adjournment. 

Fresent. 

1. General William T. Sherman, U. S. A. 5 

2. Maj. Gen. Irviu McDowell, U. S. A. ; 

3. Brig. Gen. M. C. Meigs, Quartermaster-General, U. S. A. ; 

4. Brig. Gen. John Pope, U. S. A. ; 

5. Col. George W. Getty, Third Artillery, U. S. A. ; 

6. Col. J. J. Reynolds, Third Cavalry, U. S. A. ; 

7. Col. N. A. Miles, Fifth Infantry, \J. S. A. ; and 

Maj. Asa Bird Gardner, judge-advocate, U. S. A., judge-advocate. 
The minutes of the proceedings of yesterday were read and approved. 

The Special Court of Inquiry, after a careful and mature consid- 
eration of the evidence adduced before it, report as follows, under the 
requirements of the letter of the President of April 22, 1874, and of 
the joint resolution of February 13, 1874. 

FACTS. 

The letters of the Secretary of War of date December 4, 1873, and of 
January 5, 1874, with the accompanying documents, place under dis- 
43 H c 



594 

tinct Leads the speeific matters Avhicli tliis court was required to ex- 
amine, but before proceeding to the consideration of tlie letter of the 
Secretary of War of January 5, 1S74, it seemed best to consider in their 
order the eight specific statements set fortli in the letter of December 
4, 1873. 

It is ])roper to preface the statement of facts by a somewhat detailed 
narrative of the manner of doing business in the Bureau of Eefugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, as far as it refers to : — 

PAYMENT OF BOUNTIES UNDER THE JOINT RESOLUTION OF MARCH 29, 

18G7. 

It ai)pears that m the early i)art of 18G7, the accounting officers of 
the Treasury Department becan)e uneasy at the numerous frauds being 
perpetrated on colored claimants for bounties, under the then existing 
acts of Congress, and called General Howard into consultation concern- 
ing the payment of these bounties through tlie agency of the Freed- 
men's Bureau. 

Alter advising with General Howard, these officers of the Treasury 
Department drew u\) a bill to effect this object, and submitted it to 
Congress, and ujjon their recommendation the joint resolution of March 
29, 1807, somewhat differing from the bill suggested by them, was 
passed by Congress. This law devolved upon the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of liefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the payment of 
.bounties to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines. It in terms naade 
General Howard, as Commissioner, responsible for the "safe-keeping 
and disbursements'' of funds appropriated for this purpose, but pro- 
vided in the second section that he should be assisted in these payments 
by the officers and agents of his Bureau. He accordingly set to work 
to pay claimants, through the officers and agents of the Bureau, in ac- 
cordance with this provision, in the following manner. 

General George W. Balloch, the chief disbursing officer of the Bureau, 
was the principal agent for these payments, and was so recognized and 
treated, both by the War and Treasury Departments. A Treasury cer- 
tificate for the amount due each legal claimant was made out in the name 
of such claimant and sent by the Second Auditor of the Treasury to Gen- 
eral Howard, who placed these certificates in the hands of General Bal- 
loch, who drew the money upon them from the paymaster. Vouchers, 
duly i)repared for the signature of the claimants, were then sent to the 
agents of the Bureau iu different parts of the country with a list of the 
claimants for whom the vouchers were prepared. The agents hunted up 
the clainmnts and identified them through their descriptive Ists, by 
personal examination, and in any other sufficient manner; procured 
their signatures to the vouchers for the amount due each, and 
returned the vouchers to General Balloch, who, upon their receipt, 
transmitted lists of those from whom f-igned vouchers had been 
received, with a check for the gross amount, to the agent by whom 
the signed vouchers had been sent back. It then became the duty of 
the agents again to look up the claimants, and put into the hands of 
each, in currency, the amount due him. As soon as his check left his 
hands. General Balloch tiled in the Treasury, to his credit, the vouchers 
covered by it. This was the general rule, though in isolated cases, re- 
mote from the station of any agent, the money, in rare instances, was 
sent to some officer of the Anny, or some one known to General Bal- 
loch, to be handed to the claimant. In some cases the money was 
paid in this manner through revenue officers, cashiers of freedmen banks, 
or through postmasters, but only, as appears, when there was no agent 
in the vicinitv. 



595 

lu every case, except the isolated cases above mentioned, involving 
small payments to one or two persons, and where Regular Araiy officers 
were emi)loyed, the agents were bonded officers, their bonds covering 
any liabilities they would have power to incur. 

By this mode of conducting business, it residted that vouchers were 
filed in the Treasury, and credit taken therefor, before the money act- 
ually reached the claimant, and in some cases, not numerous when com- 
pared with the great number of claimants paid, it happened that a claim- 
ant could not be found and his money was returned to General Balloch, 
while, at the same time, his receipt for the money was already iu the 
Treasury and credited to General Balloch. Some cases of this kind 
were unavoidable. In this manner payments of bounties to colored 
soldiers, sailors, and marines were made from 1SG7 to 1872, and it is the 
concurrent testimony of the Treasury officials that frauds and complaints 
.of non-payments very greatly decreased, and that the system was far 
better and more efficient than any pursued before, and still pursued iu 
the same kind of payments to white soldiers. In proportion to numbers, 
notwithstanding the much greater difficulty of identitication of colored 
claimants, the losses which fell upon claimants, by frauds or otherwise, 
in the payments to colored soldiers by the Bureau, and to white soldiers 
through the Pay Department, were in favor of the former. 

It is now proper to take up, iu order, the charges under the eight 
headings iu tlie letter of December 4, 1873. 

Heading 1. "Claimed by colored claimants, who allege that they 
have not been paid their pay and bounty, although the records of the 
Treasury Department show settlement of their claims and vouchers 
have been tiled by the late Bureau as evidence of payment of $33,888.39." 

This court did not consider it necessary to summon before it the one 
hundred and seventy four claimants referred to, to ascertain whether or 
not they had actually received the amounts claimed to be due them, since 
even if their allegations could be fully established it would not neces- 
sarily follow that fraud or wrong-doing had been committed. If it could 
be shown that the amounts thus due had actually been sent to make 
these payments, and had thus passed from the iiossession of General 
Howard and his chief disbursing officer, and such i)ortion, if any, as had 
been returned, because the claimants for it could not be found, had 
been then accounted for properly, the responsibility of General Howard 
or his chief disbursing officer would be discharged. 

To this investigation, therefore, the court proceeded with the follow- 
ing results : 

Of these one hundred and seventy- four claimants who allege that they 
have not been paid, eighty were said to have been paid through the 
agents in Kentucky. Major B. P. Runkle, of the Army, was the prin- 
cipal payor, without giving bonds as other officers of the Army on the 
same duty are now. 

An investigation made by General Howard and by a board of oflicers 
instituted by him first exposed wrong-doing in this connection, and on 
the Couimissioner's recommendatiou Iluukle was tried by a general 
court-martial, and on conviction was cashiered, heavily fined, and sen- 
tenced to imi)risonment. 

The fine and imprisonment were afterward remitted by the President. 
There seem to be only seven of the one hundred and seventy-four claim- 
ants who were paid by General Howard himself. He has established, 
in all of these cases, that the moue^^ was sent for their payment in the 
usual manner heretofore explauied, and such as has been received back, 



' 596 

because of the im])racticability of fliiding- claimants, has been duly ac- 
counted for. In all the other cases the same fact is found, except in a 
few which can be readily explained. There is no evidence of anythinj? 
improper in this transaction, and the Treasury officials testify that all 
these cases can be settled in the usual manner by them, and were act- 
ually in process of settlement at the time when this court met. 

Heading 2. Defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville, $8,503.29. Mande- 
ville was appointed agent of the Freedmen's Bureau in 1867, on the rec- 
ommendation of General Joseph A. Mower, commanding the Fifth Mili- 
tary District. This recommendation was couched in very strong lan- 
guage and bore the highest testimony to the character and fitness of 
Mandeville. He gave bonds for $10,000 to " General Howard, Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and his successors in office." 

On the 1st November, 1809, Mandeville died suddenly of cholera, fol- 
lowing an attack of yellow fever. His clerk died two days before, of 
yellow fever. General Mower immediately took charge of his office. 
There was found in his safe about $9,000. This was supposed to be 
public money, and was taken charge of as such, l)y officers detailed by 
General Mower, together with all his papers. Shortly afterward Mr. 
Sauvinet was appointed agent in Mandeville's place, and was directed 
to make a full examination of the books and records. He did so, and 
gave, as his opinion from such examination of books, that a number of 
claimants, whose claims amounted to $17,000, had not been paid, al- 
though the books indicated that they had. There seems to be no evi- 
dence whatever that these persons were not paid, and it appears that 
only teh or twelve ever stated that they had not been. (Beeman, p. 150.) 
Nevertheless, the $9,000 found in Mandeville's safe were used in mak- 
ing payments, but, so far as can be ascertained, not to those who, ac- 
cording to Mr. Sauvinet, had not been paid. 

The widow of Mandeville maintains that the money found in the safe 
wa? Mandeville's own property. Suit was brought by order of General 
Howard, and subsequently assumed by the Department of Justice, 
against the sureties on his bond, and is now in process of trial. It is 
not by any means established that Mandeville was a defaulter, or that 
any money was lost to the Government or the claimants by his acts; 
but the issue of the suit against his sureties will determine the question, 
and make good to the United States the alleged defalcation if it should 
be found to have occurred. Ten of the cases, covering about $2,000, 
used in making up the amount of Mandeville's alleged defalcation, are 
also embraced in the list of the one hundred and seventy-four cases 
above referred to, so that the sum of $2,000 has thus been twice used in 
making up the amount for which General Howard is held responsible. 

Heading 3.—" Defalcation of O. C. French reduced to $.3,814.54." 
Fren(;h was appointed agent of the Freedmen's Bureau at Natchez, 
Miss., on the recommendation of General A. C. Gillem, commanding 
Fourth Military District. Part of the money for which he has failed to 
account has been paid by one of the sureties on his bond and by himself. 
Judgment has been obtained against French and his other sureties, with 
little question that the whole amount will be recovered. 

Heading 4.— Defalcation of Maj. B. P. Runkle, $073.24. 
Eunkle was an officer of the Army regularly detailed bv the Secretary 
of War as agent of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

He was guilty of wrong-doing in the performance of his duty; was 



597 

so reported by General Howard ; was arraigned and tried therefor and 
dismissed from the service. His pay was stopped some time before to 
make good his accountability to the Treasury' for this special sum, 
$073.24, and if any money has been lost through him it is not due to 
the negligence or want of action of ''General Howard." 

HEADiNa 5. — Acknowledged by "George W. Balloch'"' to have been 
paid to "Runkle " to reimburse the latter for mistakes, &c., $1,331.03. 
It is shown by the testimony of "General Balloch," and nowhere con- 
tradicted, that he lent this sum out of his own private means to "liuukle" 
to pay up what had been erroneously i)aid by "Runkle," and that this 
sum is a [)ersoual debt owed to him by " liunkle," and in no sense an 
amount due or charged to the United States. 

HeadinGt G, — "Due by late Bureau for illegal double payments and 
certain accrued interest, several thousand dollars." 

Tuis charge is very vaguely stated. " General Balloch," in his letters to 
" General Howard," dated December 27, 1871, and January 3, 1871, sub- 
mits accounts for certain interest arising on the investment of sums of 
$334,875 and of $279,375 in United States bonds, in which appear the 
items of $1,338.50 and $1,490.25 for reimbursement for double jiayment 
of bounties. That is to pay to the rightful claimant monej' which had 
been paid erroneously but in good faith to wrong parties. These items 
are admitted by "Balloch" himself. Their legality or propriety maybe a 
matter of question. According to the testimony of the Second Auditor 
of the Treasury, a payment made in good f.iith, although made to wrong 
parties through deception practiced on the disbursing officer, would, as 
has hitherto been the case, have been passed to tbe credit of the dis- 
bursing ofhcer on satisfactory proof that such deception had been prac- 
ticed, and that the payor had not been careless or negligent in taking the 
proper precautions. 

These second payments by "General Balloch" could have been lawfully 
made from the regular bounty-fund. The tlrst payment being made to 
wrong parties did not discharge the obligation to pay the right claimants, 
and for credit for the wrong payment General Balloch should have 
looked to the practice stated by the Second Auditor. 

It could now, however, be easily settled by the Treasury De|)artment 
in accordance with the practice testified to by the Second Auditor, and 
stated heretofore in this connection. 

Heading 7.—" Irregular bounty-fund, $121,000." 

The history of this irregular bounty-fund is as follows: During the war 
some of the States sent money to ofhcers serving in the South to buy sub- 
stitutes to fill up their quota under the draft from among the colored peo- 
ple. A portion of the money thus sent was retained in the hands of offi- 
cers who had been superintendents of negro affairs by an order, " No. 90," 
made by " General B. F. Butler,'" commanding Dei)artmentof "Virginia 
and iS^orth Carolina," dated August 4, 1804, and was by the President's 
order of June2, 1805, turned over to the disbursing officers of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. Shortly after the organi- 
zation of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in 
1805, when these two officers became agents of the Bureau, " General 
Howard,"ascertainingthac the money thus held by " General Butler's" or- 
der was still in their hands, instructed them to turn it overto " General 
George W. Balloch," chief disbursing officer of the Bureau. The two offi- ' 
cers were " Col. Orlando Brown," assistant commissioner for the State of 



598 

Virginia, and " Capt. Horace James," assistant quartermaster of volun- 
teers. The first turned over to bim, |84,334.81 ; the latter, $21,584.17 ; to- 
tal, $105,918.98. " Captain James" was authorized to expend $7,491.43 of 
the $29,075.00 originally in his hands for the purpose mentioned in 
" l)aragrapli 2," order " No. 90," above referred to. Both of these 
officers sent with the money a list of persons to whom it was due. 
The amount due on "Brown's " list was $83,320.84; on James's list 
$29,075.00 ; total, $112,396.44. Total amount of money received by " Bal- 
loch" from these oflicers, $105,918.98, being a deficit in amount 
needed to pay, according to the lists, of $6,477.40, This deficit was 
made up by "Balloch" from interest on the Uuited States bonds in 
which all but a verv small fraction of the amount turned over by 
"Brown" had been invested, viz, $84,300. "On JMarch 2, 1807," an 
act of Congress was passed (see act) caustituting the Commis- 
sioner of the Freedmen's Bureau the trustee of this fund, and 
authorizing him to invest it for the sole benefit of the soldiers them- 
selves or their rightful heirs, &c., in United States bonds. The 
only provision of that law or any other on the subject prescribing the 
accountability for the expenditure of this fund, directed that on the dis- 
continuance of the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, the Commissioner sliould account for the balance left in his 
hands to the Treasury of the United States. " General Balloch," into 
whose hands as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau this money came, 
believed that he must render an account of it to the Treasury precisely 
in the same manner that all other money in his hands was accounted 
for, and, accordingly, did render accounts — abstracts and vouchers with 
his other accounts — for disbursements from January 1, 1868, to May, 
1868, to the Third Auditor. He was informed positively by the Third 
Auditor that this " irregular fund" was in no sense public money, nor 
classed under any head known to the Treasury Department, and could 
not be audited by that office. The accounts were then transferred to 
the Second Auditor's Office, when the same decision was rendered and 
confirmed by the Second Comptroller. (See evidence of " Balloch," " Vin- 
son," "Eutherford," and " French.") The Second Auditor declined to au- 
dit the accounts for the same reason given by the Third Auditor. It seems, 
however, from the evidence of Mr. Vinson, clerk Third Auditor's Office, 
that he did examine the accounts and voucliers rendered to his office on 
this fund, covering a period of more than two years, and that they were 
regular accounts, sustained by proper vouchers, and in all respects such 
accounts as would have been allowed if the office had had authority to 
pass upon them. Finally, in l870, (May 25,) these accounts and vouchers 
were all taken away from tlie Treasury by " General Balloch," by an order 
from some official. Upon referring the matter to the Second Comptrol- 
ler, he affirmed the decision of the Auditors, but remarked that " Bal- 
loch" had better continue to take vouchers in the regular way for the 
disbursement of this fund, and when the Bureau sliould be discontinued 
the second section of the act of March 2, 1867, " directed the Commis- 
sioner what to do." In his testimony the Second Comptroller confirms 
this statement, and gives the opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury 
is the person to whom the trustee, under the act, is to account for his 
trust. 

In compliance with a request from this court, "General Balloch" has 
made up an account of his expenditures of this fund from the "irregu- 
lar-boniity book," the "vouchers" which he had been ordered to with- 
draw from the Treasury, and which he left in the office of the chief dis- 



599 

buising officer, liavinj>' been lost or mislaid after lie was relieved from 
that duty. 

The inference contained in Exhibit "B,"' page 19, that General Balloch 
concealed or destroyed these vouchers to prevent discovery of frauds 
and irregularities "is not sustained, even by implication, by any testi- 
mony that has been given. There has been given no evidence what- 
ever' to discredit " Balloch's" statement that the accounts and vouchers 
for these expenditures were left in his office when he was relieved, and 
afterwards mislaid or destroyed without his knowledge or consent. It 
is presumed that this whole account will be now rendered to the Second 
Auditor, who has been designated by the Secretary of the Treasury as 
the proper person to receive and audit these accounts. 

Heading 8.— Misapplication of public funds and filing vouchers with 
the accounts covering a certain month when payments were made in a 
prior mouth, viz : 

Misapplication , $36, 314 77 

Vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date of 

payment, and, therefore, erroneous 73, 048 40 

Total 109, 363 17 

Misapplication, $36,314.77. 

It appears that the chief disbursing officer. General Balloch, while wait- 
ing the passage of a deficiency bill, in order to avoid breaiiing np all 
the organization of the office and stopping all the current business of 
the Bureau, including as its principal work the payment of bounties, 
borrowed from the general fund to his credit on his disbursing accounts, 
which consisted almost of the moneys paid to him by the Pay Depart- 
ment, upon a settlement of the bounty claims, this sum of $36,314.77, 
which amount was replaced from the Deficiency appropriation of 
$127,000 for the service of the Bureau as soon as it became available. 

" Vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date of payment, 
and therefore erroneous, $73,048.40." 

This charge is not sustained, but is directly contradicted by the evi- 
dence, there was no such transaction as is here charged. 

The only other matter contained in the letter of the Secretary of War, 
of December 4, 1873, and accompanying documents, that now remains 
to be considered, is the question of confusion and incompleteness in the 
records of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

As is natural, the clerks in the Adjutant-General's Office on the one 
side, and the clerks of the Bureau at the time of its transfer to the War 
Department, on the other, gave testimony directly in conflict. The one 
party charged that there was confusion of records before ; the other 
maintained that whatever confusion was found occurred after the trans- 
fer to the War De])artment, and was due to carelessness and reckless- 
uess in the removal. 

The court did not deem it necessary to investigate this dispute. 

It is certain that theremust necessarily have been confusion which would 
arise without fault in any one. To transfer to new hands, in a very short 
time, and to remove to another building the immense and varied records 
of so extensive a business machinery; so ramified throughout the country ; 
in the hands of so many different people ; for so many different objects. 



600 

and covering- a period of seven years, as that of the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freed men and Abandoned Lands, implies necessarily greater or less 
confusion for a long time after such transfer, even if it had been made 
by the same officials previously engaged upon it and there had been 
perfect harmony on the subject. 

The evidence before the court certainly does not indicate anything 
like such an amount of confusion and incompleteness as is charged, nor 
more than was reasonably to be expected under the peculiar circum- 
stances of the transfer, and in view of the })eculiar nature of the business 
of the Bureau. 

SECONP LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF ^YAR, JANUARY 5, 1874. 

The first charge in this letter refers entirely, it seems, to the fact 
'^ that funds of the United States duly certified as deposited with the 
United States Treasurer, and in other depositories, were not so de- 
posited." Tables for 1867, 18G8, 1809, 1870, and 1871 are given to show 
the discrepancies between the amounts reported by General Balloch, 
and the amounts actually in the Treasury of the United States in Wash- 
ington, D. C, at the time stated. Tlie Second Comptroller testified 
that such discrepancies were the general fact in such statements, and 
that seldom, if ever, were or conld be the statemeuts of balances 
made monthly by disbursing ofhcers without some such discrepancies. 
In the cases in question, he selected at landoin four of the statements 
on i)age 2, ])art li, Exhibit B, (letter of Secretary of War, of January 
5, 18J1,) and after giving them an examination, with the aid of General 
Balloch's clerk, (Terry,) he found that tliey were satisfactorily explained. 
Nothing is shown by the testimony to discredit this statement or its 
{ipplieability to all tlie tabular statements embraced in this letter, or to 
indicate any misuse of public money, fraud, or purpose of fraud. 

INVESTMENT OF PFBLIC MONEY IN UNITED STATES BONDS. 

The first of these investments was that of the large portion of the 
" irregular bounty-fund," which seems to have first come into the hands 
of General Balloch in United States bonds, but which investment was 
sanctioned afterward by the act of March 2, 1867. The second invest- 
ment was of $334,875 of the " regular bounty-fund" in United States 
bonds, known as currency sixes. It appeals, in the testimony 
of the Second Comptroller, that before investing this amount in 
bonds, General Howard called on him, and •informed him that large 
amounts of money for paying bounties, under the act of March 20, 
1867, were accumulating in his hand, and asked if the Compti'oller 
judged that he was authorized to invest the money in United States 
bonds pending the payments to the rightful parties. The Second Comp- 
troller rendered the opinion that General Howard had the right so to 
invest this Bounty-money, and that there was no law^ to pro;abit it. 
His reasons are given in full, in his testimony on the 37th day of the ses- 
sion of this court, and are still held by him. On this authority General 
Howard made the investmentof $334,875.and a subsequent investment of 
$279,375, asset forth in the letter of the Secretary of War. The amount 
of interest collected on the inVestment, $279,375, was $9,063.22, which 
was accounted for ))y General "Balloch" in account-current signed 
by him, and approved by General Howard on the 27th of December, 
1871, heretofore explained. General Balloch, in a letter dated January 
3, 1874, makes a statement of the amount received from the interest 



601 

accruing on the investment of $334,875 =$19,446-57 — and an account 
of tbe expenditure of that sum contains an item of $1,338.50 for re- 
imbursements on account of double payment. This item has already 
been dealt with in the earlier part of this statement of facts. 

The second item in this account, however, remains unexplained to the 
satisfaction of the court. It amounts to $10,652.25, and purports to 
have been paid for " school-houses and asylums." It appears, however, 
that it is a duplicate or triplicate of a voucher on which credit was 
allowed in March, 1871, and has, therefore, been thrown out by the 
accounting officers of the Treasury, who hold Balloch responsible for 
the amount. He is now endeavoring to settle it. There is a contro- 
versy as to how and when this voucher was discovered to be a duplicate 
of one already filed in the Treasury and allowed ; whether first by oiii- 
oials of the War Department or by '' General Howard." It is clear that 
(however that question may be decided) " General Howard" did cancel 
his approval, and did report the facts to the War Department, and to 
Ithe Third Auditor, as soon as he discovered it. The amount remains 
unaccounted for. 

It is to be remarked, however, that this matter forms no part of the 
charges contained in the letters of the " Secretary of War" and accom- 
panying documents which this court was required to investigate. 



OPINION OP THE COURT. 

First. — The court is of opinion that, in the matters referred to it for 
investigation, General 0. 0. Howard has not, ivith knowledge and intent, 
violated any law of Congress, regulation of the Army, or rule of morals, 
and that he is " not guilty,^'' upon legale technical, or moral responsibility in 
any of the offenses charged. 

Second. — The court finds that General Hoicard, when charged by his 
Superiors with a great icorlc arising out of the war, devoted his ichole time 
and all his faculties and energies to the execution of that ivorli. In this he 
employed hundreds of assistants and dealt with hundreds of thousands of 
men. In regard to the expenditure of money, it appears that his accounts 
are closed and settled to the satisfaction of the Accounting Officers of the 
Treasury, whose decisions in such matters are by law the highest authority, 
'■'■final ami conclusive wpon the Executive branch of the Government, and 
subject to revision only by Congress or the proper courts.'''' 

Third. — In relation to the investment of certain public moneys in United 
States bonds, while the court does not hold that such investments were justi- 
fied by existing laws, yet in view of the fact that these investments were 
made only under the opinion and advice of the Second Comptroller, the court 
attaches no blame to General Houmrd therefor. The investment of portions 
of a similar fund, viz: the ^'^ irregular bounty-fund^^ had previously been 
authorized by express law. 

Fourth. Some questions arising out of the sudden termination of the 
operations and organization of the Freedman's Bureau yet remain to be 
settled, with those who ivere formerly subordinates and assistants to the 
Commissioner, ^omefew erroneous payments made by honest subordinates^ 
and some others made, or not made by officers now dead or cashiered for 
fraud, remain to be adjusted. The adjustment of these matters belongs 
properly to the successors of General Howard in the Bureau ; and in these 
matters, as in all others brought to the notice of the court during thirty-seven 
39 HC 



602 

days of careful and laborious investigation, the court finds that General 
Oliver 0. Hoicard did Ms ichole duty, and believes that he deserves tvell of 
his country. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 
General, President of the Court. 
Asa Bird Gardner, 

Major and Judge- Advocate, U. IS. A., 

Judge- Advocate of the Court. 

There being no further business before it, on motion, the court at 3.10 
o'clock p. m. adjourned sine die. 

W. T. SHERMAN, 

General, President of the Court. 
Asa Bird Gardner, 

Major and Judge- Advocate, U. S. A., 

Judge- Advocate of the Court. 

The finding of the court of inquiry is approved. 

U. S. GRANT. 
July 2, 1874. 

O 



EXH:I33ITS 



Exhibit A. 

[General Orders No. 14.] 

War Departjient, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, February 10, 1874. 

The following joint resolution of Congress is published for the infor- 
mation and government of all concerned: 

JOIXT KESOLUTIOlSr authorizing a special court of inquiry concerning Gen. O. O. Howard. 

Besolved iy the Senate and House of Representatires of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, Tliat the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, 
authorized and requested to convene a court of inquiry, to consist of not less than five 
officers of the Army, whose duty it shall be, when so convened, to fully investigate all 
the charges against Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard contained in the communication of the 
Secretary of War to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of date December 4, 
1873, and the 5th day of January, 1874, and to report their opinion as well upon moral 
as upon technical and legal responsibility for such offenses, if any, as may be dis- 
covered : Provided, That tlie accused may be allowed the same right of challenge as al- 
lowed by law in trials by court martial. 

Approved February 13, 1874. 



By order of the Secretary of "War : 
OfiBcial : 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- Gineral. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit B. 

(To be found in printed Executive Document No. 10, parts 1 and 2, 
Forty-third Congress, first session. House of Eepresentatives.) 



Exhibit C. 

[General Orders Ro. 22.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, March 9, 1874. 
I. The following order has been received from the President of the 
United States: 

Executive Mansion, 

Washington, March 9, 1874. 
It is with deep regret that the President announces to the people of the United 
Slates the death of Millard Fillmore, one of his honored predecessors, who died at 
Buffalo, N. Y., last evening. 

1 H E 



The loug-continned and useful public service and eminent purity of character ot the 
deceased ex-President will be remembered beyond the days of mourning in which a 
nation will be thrown by the event which is thus announced. 

As a mark of respect to his memory, it is ordered that the Executive Mansion and 
the several Departments at Washington be draped in mourning until the close of the 
tlay on which the funeral shall take place, and that all business be suspended on the 
day of the funeral. 

It is further ordered that the War and Navy Departments cause suitable military 
and naval honois to be paid on the occasion to the memory of the eminent citizen 
whose life is now closed. 

U. S. GRANT. 

By the President : 

Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State. 

II. In compliance with the President's instituctions, the troops will be 
paraded at 10 o'clock a. m. on the day after the receipt of this order at 
each military post, when the order will be read to them, and the labors 
of that day will thereafter cease. 

The national flag will be displayed at half-staff. 

At dawn of day thirteen guns will be fired ; and afterward, at inter- 
vals of thirty minutes, between the rising and setting sun, a single gun ; 
and at the close of the day a national salute of thirty-seven guns. 

The officers of the Array will wear crape on the left arm and on their 
swords, and the colors of the several regiments will be put in mourning 
for the period of thirty days. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit D. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 3, 1874. 

Gen. O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner, &c., Washington, D. C. : 
General : Keferring to your application of the 31st ultimo, asking 
to consult the records of the freedmen's branch of this Office, you are 
respectfully informed that information from the said records necessary 
to you will be furnished upon the receipt of a "^Titten application or ap- 
plications, stating the information desired by you specifically. 
Very respectfidly, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 
A true copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant General. 
Adjutant-General's Office, March 3, 1874. 
The Judge-Advocate, 

Court of Inquiry c&c, dec. 



3 
Exhibit E. 

[Circular.] 

Quartermaster General's Office, 

Washington City, August 16, 1862. 
I. The following circular, received from the Treasury Departmeut, is 
published for the iuformatiou of all officers and agents of or doing duty 
in the Quartermaster's Department: 

Second Comptroller's Office, Jh^/hsM, 1862. 

The act of Congress approved July 17, 1862, entitled "An act to provide for the 
more prompt settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers," direc*^^s as follows : 

" Tiiat from and after the passage of this act any officer or agent of the United 
States who shall receive x>ublic money which he is not authorized to retain as salary, 
pay, or emolument, shall render his accounts monthly instead of quarterly as hereto- 
fore ; and such accounts, with the vouchei's necessary to the correct and prompt set- 
tlement thereof, shall be i-endered direct to the proper accounting officer of the Treas- 
ury, and be mailed or otherwise forwarded to its proper address within ten days after 
the expiration of each successive month. And in case of the non-receipt at the Treas- 
ury of any accounts within a reasonable and proper time thereafter, the officer whose 
accounts are in default shall be required to furnish satisfactory evidence of havinsj 
complied with the provisions of this act; and for any default on his part the delin- 
quent officer shall be deemed a defaulter, and be subject to all the penalties prescribed 
by the sixteenth section of the act of August sixth, eighteen hundred and forty-six, 
' to provide for the better organization of the Treasury, and for the collection, safe- 
keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public revenue :' rrovlded, That the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury may, if in his opinion the circumstances of the case justify and 
require it, extend the time hereinbefore prescribed for the rendition of accounts : And 
provided further. That nothing herein contained shall tie construed to restrain the heads 
of any of the Departments from requiring such other returns or reports from the offi- 
cer or agent subject to the control of such heads of Departments as the public interest 
may require." 

This general phraseology includes all officers or agents of every grade whatever, 
whether in active service or not, and I am not at liberty to mal^e any exceptions, 
unless as authorized by the law. 

I have, therefore, to require that all officers or agents of the War and Navy Depart- 
ments, as also of the Indian and Pension branches of the Interior Department, shall 
render their accounts direct, in due compliance with the act of July 17, 1862, to the 
proper accounting officers, namely, to the Second, Third, or Fourth Auditor of the 
Treasury. 

Under provision of other laws, all officers, agents, or other persons who shall receive 
public money, from any source whatever, before it is paid into the Treasury, are re- 
quired to pay the same into the Treasury, and alike to render account thereof to the 
proper accounting officers. 

The Second, Third, and Fourth Auditors of the Treasury will report to this office 
monthly the name of each officer or agent who has omitted to render his accounts as 
required by the act of 1862. 

The report will state the name and official designation of the officer or agent, and 
the time at Avhich his account ought, according to the law, to have been rendered. 

Under instruction, this report will be transmitted without delay, by the bead of this 
office, to the Secretary of the Treasury, and duplicates of them, at the same time, to 
the head of the Departmeut to which the offending officer or agent is responsible. 

J. MADISON CUTTS, 

Comptroller. 

Approved : ^ 

S. P. Chase, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

II. All disbursing officers and agents of the Quartermaster's Depart- 
ment are therefore directed to make their accounts hereafter in tripli- 
cate ; one copy, together with the necessary abstracts and vouchers, to 
be rendered monthly to the Quartermaster-General's Office, and one 
direct to the proper Auditor, as required by the law. 

M. C. MEIGS, 
Quartertnaster- General. 



4 
Exhibit F. 

[Circular No. 2.] 

Office CommissaeyGeneeal of Subsistence, 

Washington City, January 25, 18G4. 
For the purpose of preventing frauds and impositions on tlie Govern- 
ment, and unnecessary delay in tlie settlement of claims requiring the 
action of this Office, the following is published for the information of all 
concerned, and for the government of officers doing duty in the Subsist- 
ence Department : 

I. Officers giving vouchers required to be in sets by the regulations of this Depart- 
ment, shall distinctly indicate the number of copies composing the set, by writing 
plainly on the face of each copy, the words "signed in duplicate," " signed in triplicate," 
" signed in quadruplicate," etc., as the case may be. 

II. When a voucher is submitted for the action of this Office, all the copies compos- 
ing the set shall be forwarded together ; and the affidavit required by paragraph 73, 
Subsistence Kegulations of June 8, 1863, shall be attached to the voucher before it is 
transmitted. 

III. When a voucher, or other claim, is supported by sub-vouchers or other papers, 
(as an account, abstract, affidavit, certificate, &.c.,) all the different papers relating to 
the voucher, or other claim, must be attached together in some secure manner, and in 
such order of sequence as will best facilitate examination and prevent loss or mis- 
placement of the papers. 

IV. Letters inclosing vouchers, or other papers, for the action of this office, shall 
enumerate the inclosures, specifyin*^, if they are vouchers, the name of the person to 
whom they were given, and the amount of each voucher. The post-office address of the 
"writer must be stated, at length, giving the name of the town, county, and State. In this 
connection, the attention of officers is particularly directed to the instructions con- 
tained in paragraphs 83, 87, 88, and 89, Subsistence Regulations of June 8, 1863. 

J. P. TAYLOR, 
Commissartj-Geueral of /Stihsistence. 



Exhibit F — Continued. 

[Circular No. 3.] 

Relative to accounts and returns. 

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington City, March 1, 1866. 

Officers performing subsistence duty must be particular in observing 
the requirements of the regulations and orders of the War Department, 
and of circulars and instructions from this Office. An occasional non- 
compliance with some of these requirements suggests the following in- 
structions, to which attention is called: 

1. All vouchers, evidence, or explanations relating to suspended or disallowed ac- 
counts required from an officer by the Third Auditor of the Treasury, must be submit- 
ted to the Conmiissary-Geueral of Subsistence, who will forward them, with his ac- 
tion thereon to the Auditor. 

2. Accounts for expenditures other than for the purchase of regular subsistence sup- 
plies, and payment for the usual authorized services, must contain statements explana- 
tory of the object, propriety, and necessity of the expenditure. 

3. Accounts for the expenditure of money made under authority of the War Depart- 
ment, not embraced in the regulations, must be accompanied by a copy of the special 
order authorizing the expenditure ; or, if made under a general order, the number and 
date of the order must be indicated on the face of the account when a copy of the gen- 
eral order cannot be had to accompany it. 

4. Accounts for services must not be paid on the certificate of another officer with- 
out the approval of the Commissary-General of Subsistence, or of higher authority, 
unless special permission to pay such accounts has been given. 



5. Accounts for re-imbursinn; persons in the military service for subsistence supplies 
purchased with their own funils, must be supported by the original receipted bills, and. 
by evideuce showing the nature and necessity of the transaction, and also that the 
person claiiuiug re-itnburseraeut had no personal iuterest in the matter. 

6. Accounts aud receipts having alterations or erasures are not admissible as perfect 
vouchers, unless the persons signiug the certificates and receipts ou which the validity 
of the vouchers depend, certify that such alterations or erasures (specified) were made 
before the paper was sigued, or with the consent of the parties. 

7. The name signed to a receipt must be written as it appears at the head of the ac- 
■count. Wheu payment is made to an attorney, he must sign the receipt with the 
name of the priucipal, adding his own as attorney. Vouchers paid to attorneys must 
be accompanied by properly executed powers, authorizing them to receive and receixitj, 
for the monej' in the name of the priucipal. 

8. Wheu a person cannot write his name to a receipt, he must subscribe by his mark, 
which must be attested as his mark by a disinterested subscribing witness. Each sig- 
nature by mark must be witnessed separately, the witness, wheu practicable, to be a 
commissioned officer. 

9. Commutation of rations to an enlisted man for the period while on furlough can 
"be allowed only on the evidence presented by the fui'lough, (which furlough should 
accompany the account,) and satisfactory proof indorsed on the furlough that the sol- 
dier had returned to duty at its expiration. 

10. lu acknowledging the receipt of funds from an officer, his name in full with his 
rank, and the designation of the organization to which he belongs by virtue of his com- 
mission, must be given in legible writing ou the account current of the receiving 
officer. 

11. An error made in an account must be corrected by the officer making it in his 
next account current, after he obtains knowledge of the error, reference being made 
therein to the particular voucher wherein it occurred. * 

12. A disallowance made by the Connnissary-General of Subsistence in the examina- 
tion of an account must be taken up m the same manner, unless the officer can produce 
evidence sufficient to remove it, in which case such evideuce will be immediately fur- 
nished for the administrative action of this Office. 

13. The disbursements of the hospital fund must be carefully limited to the purchase 
of articles enumerated iu paragraph 1212, Revised Regulations for the Army, corre- 
sponding with paragraph 37, Subsistence Regulations of 1863, pamphlet edition. 

14. When subsistence stores or commissary property have been lost or improperly 
issued, their cost must be taken uji ou the officer's account current, unless the loss or 
issue shall be explained, and the explanation admitted as satisfactory. 

15. Officers, when notified of errors in their returns, will correct them on the return 
for the month iu which they receive such notification, by taking up or dropping the 
amount of stores or of commissary property necessary to co\rer the errors. It will be 
stated iu the column of remarks in what month the errors occurred. 

16. In all cases where the errors are numerous, abstracts of errors should accompany 
the return upon which the corrections are made, and should contain full aud complete 
remarks. 

17. For all issues of supplies not authorized by the regulations or general orders of 
the War Department, the original order directing such issues should be referred to aud 
accompany the abstracts. 

18. All official communications intended for the Commissary-General of Subsistence, 
should be addressed to that officer by name and official designation. 

A. B. EATON, 
Commissary-General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit F — Contiuaed. 

[Circular No. 9.] 

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washhigton, D. C, May 21, 1866 

To enable tbe Commissary-General of Subsistence to comply wita 

instructions from tbe Secretary of War, Officers performing duty in 

tbe Subsistence Department will render to tbis Office, on Monday of 

eacb week, a statement * of tbe subsistence funds for wbicb tbey are 

* Monthly summary statements will be rendered as heretofore. 



accountable, specifying the amount of each kind of funds and the places 
of deposit thereof. See form on 3d page of this circular. 

A. B. eato:n^, 

Commissary-General of tSxibsistence. 



Statement of funds for which Lieutenant 



accountable. 



Eegiment of 



A. C. S., is 



Where ilepositoil 


Coin. 


Treasury- 
notes and 
fractional 
currency. 


Notes of 
national 
banks. 




Total. 




Dollars. 


Cts. 


Dollars. 


Cts. 


Dollars. 


Dollars. 


Cts. 


Dollars. 


cts. 






















Assistant treasurer United States at 








In my personal possession, deposited in 
office safe. 




Total 





























station 



-, . Date • 



-. Lieutenant ■ 



-, — Regiment of - 



-, A. C. S. 



Exhibit G. 



[Circular No. 11.") 

Office Commissary-General of Sitbsistence, 

Washington, D. C, May 31, 1866. 

I. The attention of officers on duty in the Subsistence Departmeut is 
called to the requirements of the following order: 

[Geneinl Orders No. -i.] 

War Department, Adjutaxt-Gexeral's Office, 

Washington, January 18, 1866. 

Here.ifter, when disbursing ofBcers, in payment of accounts, draw checks or drafts 
on funds placed to their credit with assistant treasurers or other depositaries of the 
United States, they will note upon the receipt taken for such payment the number, 
date, and amount of such check or draft given in payment, and designate the assistant 
treasurer or depositary upon whom it is drawn. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assista n t Adjutant- General. 

II. Accounts paid from funds, other than those deposited as indicated 
in the above order, will also have appropriately noted on the receipt the 
mode of payments, as, "from funds in ofltice-safe ;" " from funds in uiy 
j)ersonal possession ;" " by check No. — — , on national bank .'^ 

If paid by two or more checks, or partly in cash and i)art]y by check, 
it "will be so noted in detail on the receipt. 

III. Hereafter, in transfers of subsistence funds, du])licate invoices 
and receipts thereof will be passed between the paying and receiving 

^officers — made as nearly as practicable by Form 33, subsistence regula- 
tions — having thereon statements in detail of the kinds of funds, places 



of deposit, description of checks, &:c., given and received in the transfer. 
Such invoices and receipts to be vouchers to the accounts-current. 

A. B. EATOX, 
Conun issary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit G — Continued.^ 

[Circular Xo. 12.] 

Office Commissary -General of Subsistence, 

Washington, D. C, June 8, 1866. 
I, The following- order of tbe Secretary ot War, and list of assistant 
treasurers and special Government depositaries, required by the first 
paragraph, are published for the information and government of all offi- 
cers on duty in the Subsistence Department : 

War Department, Adjutaxt-Gexeral's Office, 

Wmhhxjton, May 2(5, 1866. 

To Commissar y-Gexehal of Subsistence, U. S. A. : 

From and after this date piiblic funds in the hands of officers of your Bureau will 
only be deposited with assistant treasurers and special Government depositaries, a list 
of which you will obtain from the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Officers receivino- funds for sales of public property, except the ordinary sales of sub- 
sistence stores, will, without unnecessary delay, make deposits in the nearest of said 
depositories to the credit of the Treasiuer of the United States, on account of the ap- 
propriations to which they belong. 

Transfer from one depository to another shall not be made without special authority 
from the Secretary of War. 'Where there is no assistant treasurer or special deposi- 
tary, and a place of deposit is needed, the fact will be reported to the Secretary, and 
application made for leave to deposit in a national bank. Funds shall remain in the 
depository until actually needed for disbursement to the public creditor. Disburse- 
ments shall be made of the identical funds received from the depositary. 

You will prepare and issue instructions in conformity with this order, and transmit 
a copy thereof to this ofSce, and acknowledge these instructions. 

Bv order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEXD, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Treasury Department, May 24, 1866. 
Sir : Tiie assistant treasurers and designated depositaries of the United States are 
as follows, viz : 

ASSIST.\XT TREASm^RS 

At Boston, Mass T. P. Chandler. 

New York, N. Y H. H. Van Dyck. 

Philadelphia, Pa N. B. Browne. 

Saint Louis, Mo A. G. Edwards. 

Charleston, S. C B. C. Pressley. 

New Orleans, La T. P. May. 

San Francisco, Cal D. W. Cheesemau. 

Denver City, Colo Geo. W. Lane. 

designated depositaries. 

Buffalo, N. Y Charles D. Norton. 

Baltimore, Md Edwin H. Webster. 

Chicago, 111 : H. H. Nash, (acting.) 

Cincinnati, Ohio K. H. Stephenson. 

Louisville, Kv W. D. Gallagher. 

Pittsburgh, Pa Chas. W. Batchelor 

Saint Paul, Minn J- H. Stewart. 

Oregon Citv, Oreg Henry Warren. 



Santa Fc, N. Mex James L. Collins. 

Olynipia, Washington Territory Jos. Cnsbniau. 

Omaha, Nebr B. W. TinmbuU. 

I remain, sir, jours, respectfully', 

W. E. CHANDLER, 

Assistant Secretary. 
Gen. A. B. Eaton, 

Coinmissary-General, Washington, D. C. 

II. "Ordinary sales of subsistence stores" is understood to include 
all sales of subsistence stores made in the transaction of the ordinary 
current duties of the Subsistence Department. 

III. Ofticers stationed at points where checks on the nearest assistant 
treasurers or designated depositaries are not acceptable to the public 
creditors, rendering necessary a more convenient place of deposit, will 
report the facts and make application to this office (for reference to the 
Secretary of \Var) for leave to deposit in a national bank. 

IV. "Funds shall remain in the depository until actually needed for 
disbursement to the public creditor" is not intended to forbid disburs- 
ing officers keeping on hand in their office safes such limited sums as 
may be clearly necessary tor the proper transaction of the public busi- 
ness in their charge. 

A. B. EATOX, 
Commissary-General of tSuhsistence. 



Exhibit H. 

[Circular No. 13.] 

Office Cothiviissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington, I). C, June 22, 1866. 

I. The attention of officers on duty in the Subsistence Department is 
particularly called to General Orders No. 39, War Department, Adju- 
tant-General's Office, June 19, 1866, publishing an act approved June II, 
1866, "to regulate and secure the safe-keeping of public money intrusted 
to disbursing officers of the United States." 

II. Disbursing officers of the Subsistence Department stationed "in 
places where there is no treasurer nor assistant treasurer of the United 
States," who deem it essential to the public interest that they be author- 
ized to deposit the j)ublic money for which they are or may become 
responsible, or any portion thereof, "in any other public depository" or 
place of deposit, or to keep it in any other manner, will, on the receipt 
of this circular, report the facts and make application to this office, with 
a view to obtaining the authority necessary under the jiroviso to section 
1 of said act. 

A. B. EATON, 
Commissary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit H — Continued. 

[Circular No. 1.] 

Office CoioiissART-GENERAL of Subsistence, 

Washington, I). C, January 21, 1867. 

The Secretary of War directs that, when deposits are made to the 



credit of the Treasurer of tlie Uuited States by disbursing oflScers or 
ageuts of the Siibsisteuce Departiueot, the ork/inal certificates of deposit 
be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury through the Commissary-G-ene- 
ral of Subsistence and the War Department. 

A. B. EATOX, 
Commissary-General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit I. 

[Circnlar Xo. 3.] 

Office Co^oiissary-Gexeeal of Subsistence, 

Washington, I). C, March 28, 18G7. 

1. The following General Order is published for the information and 
guidance of ofldcers doing duty in the Subsistence Department : 

[General Orders IKo. 23.] » 

War Departmext, Adjutant Gexeral's Office, 

Washington, March 19, lo67. 

The following resolution of Congress is published for the information and govern- 
ment of all concerned : 

(Pl'blic Resclutiox— Xo. 29.] 

A RESOLUIIOX to facilitate the settlement of accounts of di-sbursing officers. 

Resolred iy the Senate and House of Represent afives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That so much of the act entitled "An act to provide for the more 
prompt settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers," approved July 17, 1-^62, as 
provides that '' such accounts, with the vouchers necessary to the correct and prompt 
settlement thereof, shall be rendered direct to the proper accounting officers of the 
Treasury," be, and the same is hereby, repealed: and all such accounts and vouchers 
shall hereafter be sent to the bureaii to which they pertain, and, after examination 
there, shall be pas.sed to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury for settlement. 

Approved March 2, l5i67. 

Bv order of the Secretarv of War : 

E. D. TO^vysE^'D, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

2. Hereafter, instead of forwarding the account-current to the Third 
Auditor, officers will iuclo.se it (with its proper vouchers, abstracts, &c.) 
direct to the Comrai.^sary-General of Subsistence, with the return of 
provisions, and one letter of transmittal. 

A. B. EATOX, 
Commissary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit I — Continued. 

[Circular Xo. 1.] 



Office Co:ndiissaey-Gexeeal of Subsistence, 

Washington, D. C, July 3, 1871. 

The Secretary of War directs that when moneys received from 

•sales of property, or otherwi.se, are depo.sited to the credit of the 

Treasurer of the*^ United States, the disbursing officer making such 

deposit shall designate, as near as pos.sible, upon the certificates of de- 



lO 



posit, tlie fiscal year to which such credits shall apply ; that is, to credit 
the appropriation for the fiscal year diiriug which the moneys were orig- 
inally drawn. 

A. B. EATON, 
Commissary -General of Siibsistence. 



Exhibit ,J. 

[Circular No. 2.] 

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington, 1). C, October 28, 1871. 
The attention of officers on duty in the Subsistence Department is 
called to the following General Order : 

^ [General Orders No. 23.] 

War Department, Ad.jutaxt-Gexeral's Office, 

JVashiti(/to)i, October 2\, 1871. 
The followiug circular from the Treasury Department, prescribiug the manner of 
drawing certain United States disbursing officers' checks, is published for the informa- 
tion of all concerned : 

Treasury Department, Octoher 10, 1871. 
All disbui-sing officers or agents of the United States (except pension-agents) draw- 
ing checks on moneys deposited to their official credit with the Treasurer of the United 
States, any of the assistant treasurers and United States depositaries, in favor of them- 
selves or Ijearer, or in favor of any person other than a public creditor, must state on 
the face or back of the check the object or purpose to which the avails are to be applied. 
Pension-agents drawing such checks must furnish a list containing the names of the 
persons to whom payment is to be made and the amounts due to each. 

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 
A. B. EATON, 
CoMinissary-Heneral of Suisisfence. 



Exhibit J — Continued. 

[Circular No. 3. J 

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington, D. C, Xovemher 6, 1871. 
The attention of officers on duty in the Subsistence Department is 
called to the following General Order : 

[General Orders No. 65.1 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 
Washington, Octoher 30, 1871. 

Certificates of deposit. 

Officers or agents of this Department who hereafter transfer public funds by deposit- 
ing the same to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States, will, in each case, 
require and receive certificates of deposit in duplicate only. 

The face of each certificate will be made to show, in writing, to what a]>propriation 
the deposit belongs, and for what fiscal year the money was appropriated, provided the 



II 

depositor possesses such iuformation as may Le necessary to enable the depositary to 
state the same in preparing the certificate for issue. 

The original certificate, with a letter of transmittal showing for what reason or on 
what account the deposit has been made, will at once be forwarded to the chief of the 
bureau controlling the appropriation to which the money belongs, or, in the absence of 
information concerning the latter, to the bureau-officer in this city under whose orders 
the depositor received the funds. The duplicate certificate will be retained by the 
depositor for his security. 

The place, date, and amount of depo&it, and the number of the certificate, together 
with the appropriation if specified, will be noted on the account-current or other 
proper return upon which the depositor desires to be credited for the money. 

Original certificates of deposit, when received and recorded at the bureau offices, 
will, without unnecessary delay, be transmitted through the Secretary of War to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, care being taken that the appropriation and the fiscal year 
are clearly and properly specified in every case. 

By order of the secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

J (1jt( ta n I- Gen eral. 

Circular ^o. 1, dated January 21, 18G7, from tbis Office, is hereby 
revoked. 

A. B. EATOy, 
Commissary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit K. 

[Circular No. 5.] 

Office Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington, D. C, Xovemhcr 25, 1871. 

1. The attention of officers doing duty in the Subsistence Departmeut 
is called to General Orders No. 64, War Department, A. G. O., October 
25, 1871, publishing regulations in regard to rendering returns and their 
settlement. 

2. Applied to the Subsistence Departmeut the order requires as fol- 
lows: 

By paragraph XI: That the return of provisions (Form 1) and return of commissary 
property (Form 8) be made and forwarded to the office of the Commissary-General of 
Subsistence as heretofore, that is, the former monthly and the latter quarterly, within 
ten days after the expiration of the period for which rendered. 

By paragraph IV : As soon as possible after its receipt by the Commissary-General 
the return will be examined in his office, and suspensions or disallowances wiU not be 
made on account of slight informalities which do not affect the validity of a voucher, 
but the officer's attention will be directed to them by suitable advisory remarks. 

By paragraph V: The examination having been completed, the officer making the 
return will be notified of all errors and irregularities found therein, and granted three 
months, if stationed east of the Rocky Mountains, or six months, if serving west thereof, 
to correct them. If the necessary corrections in the return be not made within the 
prescribed time, the proper commanding officer shall be requested by the Commissary- 
General to appoint a board of survey to ascertain the value of any articles for which 
the officer fails to account, and as soon as the valuations are received by the Commis- 
sary-General the Paymaster-General will be requested to stop their ainount from the 
pay of the delinquent officer, and the Paymaster-General will notify the Commissary- 
General of the stoppage, which notice will be filed with the officer's return. 

By paragraph VI: As soon as the return shall have been fully corrected, it shall be 
forwarded to the Third Auditor of the Treasury for settlement, under the direction of 
the Secretary of War, accompanied by a report of errors and the manner in which they 
have been removed, including a statement of the ascertained money-value of the 
deficient articles of property. 

By paragraph VII : Upon receipt of the return by the Auditor, it will be examined 
80 far as to ascertain if the quautities of public property and stores on hand at the 
date of the last return are correctly restated in the present return, and a report of any 
errors in such restatement will be promptly transmitted to the Commissary-General, 



12 

■who will take sncli measures for their correction as hereiu prescribed for errors ia 
other portions of the return. 

By paragraph VIII: The Third Auditor, reviewinor the remarks and the action of the 
Commissai-y-General upon the errors and irregularities contained in the return, will 
submit any portion thereof that he may deem necessary, with his own views, to the 
Secretary of War. 

By paragraph IX : Whenever the errors have been corrected or compensation therefor 
made as pro\ided, and the action of the Commissary-General concurred in by the 
Auditor, or sustained or modified by the Secretary of War, the return will l)e regarded 
as settled, and the Auditor will so certify to the Commissary-General for the informa- 
tion of himself and of the officer concerned. 

3. From these regulations ofificers will see the necessity for giving 
their constant personal attention to the protection and care of the pub- 
lic property in their charge, and to the preparation of the returns, ab- 
stracts, &c., required of them ; but attention is especially called to 
the importance of their personally seeing that all arithmetical calcula- 
tions are correctly made, and quantities and amounts accurately stated ; 
and of their personally comparing entries on their returns with the 
abstracts, &c., from which such entries are made. It is expected that 
by such attention to details, and by promjitly correcting any errors or 
irregularities of which they may be notified, officers will save them- 
selves from the stoppages of pay which neglect in these duties will 
entail upon them. 

A. B. eato:n^. 

Commissary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit K — Continued. 

[Circular No. C] 

Ofi'ice Commissary-General of Subsistence, 

Washington^ D. C, December 6, 1871. 

I. By direction of the Secretary of War, officers disbursing subsistence- 
funds will hereafter issue no checks against their official deposits, ex- 
cept in pursuance of law and Treasury regulations, as follows : 

1st. For payment of authorized vouchers. 

2d. For transfer of credits, from one to another officer disbui'siug subsistence-funds, 
in the same depository. 

3d. To draw money for the payment of small accounts, or for the payment of author- 
ized employes. 

In all cases a brief statement on the face or back of the check should show the pur- 
pose for which it is drawn. 

II. The weekly statement of funds required by Circular No. 9, of 
18GG, from this Office, will hereafter be rendered on Saturday, and show 
the amount of each kind of funds and the places of deposit thereof at the 
close of business on that day. 

A. B. EATON, 
Commissary- General of Subsistence. 



Exhibit K — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 1.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Waslmigton, January 9, 1872. 
The following circular from the Treasury Department, containing in- 



structions to United States disbursing ofiQcers, is published for the iu- 
formatiou and guidauce of all concerned. Ofiicers of the Army disburs- 
ing public funds will be held accountable for a strict compliance with 
its requirements : 

1872. 

[IXDEPENDEXT TREASURY CIRCULAR NO. 1.] 

Instruetiotis relutice to jjuhlic moneys and official checks of the United States dishursing 

officers. 

Treasury Department, January 2, 1872. 

All pyblic money advanced to disbnrsino: officers of the United States must be depos- 
ited immediately, 'to their respective credits, with either the United States Treasurer, 
some assistant treasurer, or designated depositary, other than a national-bank deposi- 
tary, nearest or most convenient ; or, by special direction of the Secretary of the Treas ' 
ury, with a national-bank depositary, except: 

(1.) Each disbursing officer of the War Department especially authorized by the Sec- 
retary of War, when stationed on the extreme frontier or at places far remote from such 
depositaries, may keep, at his own risk, such moneys as may be intrusted him for dis- 
bursement. 

(2.) Any officer receiving money remitted to him upon specitic estimates, will at 
once disburse the same accordingly, without waiting to place it in a depository, if the 
payments are due, and he prefers this method to that of drawing checks. 

Checks drawn by disbursing officers upon money thus deposited should be in favor 
of the person, by name, to whom payment is to be made, or in favor of such person, bj^ 
name or bearer, with these exceptions : 

(A.) Any disbursing officer may draw checks in favor of himself or bearer for such 
amounts as may be necessary (1) to pay sums under $80 ; (2) to pay («) fixed salaries 
due at a certain period, he may withdraw the necessary amount by checks two days 
before the salaries are to be paid ; (b) to make payments at a distance from a depos- 
itory, he may witlidraw the necessary amount by check. 

(B.) Any dislnusing ot'ticer of the War Departmeut specially designated by the Sec- 
retary of War may also draw, by checks payable to himself or bearer, the amount of 
his regular monthly pay-rolls or vouchers, not to exceed live days before the regular 
date when payment of such pay-rolls or vouchers is due. 

All disbursing officers or agents, except pension-agents, drawing checks on moneys 
deposited to their official credit, must state on the face or oack of each check the object 
or purpose to which the avails are to be applied. Such statement may be made in 
brief form, but must clearly indicate the object of the expenditure, as, for instance, 
" pay," " pay-roll," or " payment of troops," adding the fort or station, " imrchase of 
subsistence" or other supplies, "on contract for construction," mentioning the fortifi- 
cation or other public work for which the payment is made, &c. 

Pension-agents drawing checks in favor of themselves, or in favor of any person 
other than a pensioner, must furnish a list containing the names of the persons to 
whom payment is to be made from the avails, and the amounts payable to each. 

Transfer-checks drawn by one disbursing officer in favor of another will be used 
only to effect a transfer of credit from the drawer to the payee in the depository where 
they are payable, and to which they should be transmitted by the payee for such pur- 
pose. 

Excepting checks of pension-agents in favor of pensioners, and " bounty-checks," 
public depositaries are not required to pay checks of disbursing officers made payable 
in the alternative, to any person or his order. They may, however, pay them when 
drawn to order, if satisfied of the genuineness of the indorsements, and sufficient funds 
remain to the credit of the drawer. 

Checks will not be returned to the drawer after their payment, but the depositary 
with whom the account is kept shall furnish the officer with a monthly statement of 
his deposit-account. 

No allowance will be made to any disbursing officer for expenses charged for collect- 
ing money on checks. 

In case of the death, resignation, or removal of any disbursing officer, checks pre- 
viously drawn by him will be paid from the funds at his credit, unless said checks 
have been drawn more than four months before the presentation thereof, or reasons 
exist for suspecting fraud. 

Each disbursing officer is required, when first opening a disbursing account, to fur- 



14 

nisli his official signature to the officer on whom the checks are drawn before drawing 
such checks. 

No. — . Office of the United States, (Assistant Treasurer or Depositary.) 

, ,18 . 

Received of , dollars, consisting of , to be placed to his 

credit as , and subject only to his check in that official capacity. 

$ . , U. S. (Assistant Treasurer or Depositary.) 

A receipt of this form shall be given for every deposit made by a disbursing officer, 
which shall show, besides its serial number and the place and date of issue, the char- 
acter of the funds, (. e., whether coin or currency ; and if the credit is made by a dis- 
bursing officer's check, transferring funds to another disbursing officer, the essential 
items of the check shall be enumerated ; if by a Treasury draft, like items shall be 
given, including the warrant number. The title of each officer shall be expressed, and 
the title of the disbursing account shall also show for what branch of the pulllic sei'- 
vice the account is kept, it being essential for the proper transaction of Department's 
business that moneys advanced to a disbursing officer serving in two or more distinct 
capacities, from diii'erent bureaus, be kept separate and distinct from each other, and 
be so i-eported to the Department both by the officer and the depositary. 

These regulations are intended to supersede those of May 27, 1857 ; November 10, 
18fi6 ; January 18, 1SG8 ; November 23, 1869 ; July 14, 1871 ; October 10, 1871, and No- 
vember 24, 1871. 

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 

Si'cretary. 

(See acts of August 6, 1846; March 3, 1857; June 14, 1366.) 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adintant-General. 
Note. — General Orders No. 75 is the last of the series of 1871. 



Exhibit L — Coutinued. 

[General Orders No. 74.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washingtoii, July 7, 1862. 

I. The followiag resolution of Congres.s is published for the informa- 
tiou of all concerned : 

A RESOLUTION to encourage enlistments in the Regular Army and volunteer forces . 

liesolvcd iy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Con- 
gress assembled, That so much of the ninth section of the act approved August third, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled " An act for the better organization of the 
military establishment," as abolishes the premium paid for bringing accepted recruits 
to the rendezvous, be and the same is hereby repealed, and hereafter a premium of two 
dollars shall be paid to any citizen, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, for such ac- 
cepted recruit for the Regular Army [as] he may bring to the rendezvous. And every 
soldier who hereafter enlists, either in the Regular Army or the volunteers, for three 
years, or during the war, may receive his first month's pay in advance, upon the mus- 
tering of his company into the service of the United States, or after he shall have been 
mustered into and joined a regiment already in the service. 

Approved June 21, 1862. 

II. For the two-dollar premium, regular service, the form of receipt-roll 
annexed will be used as a consolidated voucher for the payments. The 
payments will be made from recruiting funds, and so soon as the recruit 
is accepted by the recruiting ofiicer. 

III. For volunteer recruits, for old regiments, there will be paid a pre- 
mium of three dollars, and for those entering new regiments a premium 
of two dollars. The premium may be paid either to the person bring- 
ing the recruit, or to the recruit in person, in case he presents himself 



15 

These payments will be made so soon as the recruit lias been inspect- 
ed by tlie surgeon and mustered into the service. 

The auiounts will be entered on the muster-in roll, opposite the names 
of the recruits so paid, and charged to the fund for " collecting^ drilling, 
and organizing volunteers.''' 

For a voucher, a modified form of that used in the regular service may 
be used. 

IV. The month's pay in advance for regular and volunteer recruits 
will be paid under such regulations as the Paymaster-General may es- 
tablish. 

V. During the continuance of the existing war, twenty-five dollars of 
the one hundred bounty previously authorized b}^ act of Congress will be 
paid to every recruit of the regular and volunteer forces. 

These payments will be made as follows, viz : 

1. To volunteer recruits for the old regiments, when the said recruits 
are inspected and mustered into the service, and to those of the new 
regiments when their companies are organized, muster-iu rolls made out 
and the mustering officer's certificate given thereto. The amounts will 
be entered on the muster-in rolls, opposite the names of the recruits, re- 
spectively, and charged under the head of " expenses of volunteer recruit- 
ing service.''' To this end, an account-current separate from that for the 
fund for " collecting, drilling, and orgauiziug volunteers," will be used, 
but the " volunteer recruiting fund" will be disbursed by the regularly 
appointed mustering and disbursing officers. 

2. To recruits for the regular service when the recruit has been passed 
by the " board of iuspectors," at the regimental or general-service depot, 
as the case may be. The amounts under this head will be paid from the 
recruiting funds, and entered on the recruiting account-current opposite 
the names of the recruits, respectively, and also on the first descriptive 
list of the soldier ; whenever this list is given before bounty has been paid, 
an entry — "$25 bounty due for enlistment" — will be made thereon. 

In case of re-enlisted soldiers, the entry, as to payment or non-pay- 
ment, will be made on the first muster-roll, and the superintendent of 
the recruiting service will be notified of the fact. 

3. Vouchers for payment will be in the form of consolidated receipt- 
rolls. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

L. THOMAS, 

Adjutant- General. 



We, the nndershjned, do herebtj acknowledge to have received from Lieut. , 

iiegiment of , recniitiny officer, lor from , mustering and disbursing 

officer,'] the sums opposite our names, respectively, being in full for amounts due us for 
procuring and bringing to the rendezvous accepted recruits. Our names are placed opposite 
the names of recruits so furnished, and we have signed duplicates hereof. 



Date. No. Name of recruit. Amount. ^^c"rint ?ec?uits.™' 



Witness. 



Eemarks. 



I certify that the above is correct ; that the recruits accepted are "effective and able-bodied;" and 
that, in accepting them, I have been strictly governed by paragraphs 925 and 926 Recruting Regula- 
tions. 

— Lieutenant Infantry, 

Recruiting Officer. 



i6 

Exhibit L— Continued. 
[General Orders No. 198.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, December 3, 1862. 

I. Mustering and disbursing officers are prohibited from paying any 
accounts for expenses incurred iu collecting, drilling, and organizing 
volunteers, prior to July 1, 1862, unless such accounts shall have been 
audited and ordered to be paid by the War Department. 

II. The intent of paragraph II of General Order No. 162, current 
series, has, in some instances, been misunderstood. It is not intended 
to forbid the payment of bounty, premium, and advance-pay to recruits 
for the old volunteer regiments, viz, those organized prior to July 1, 
1862 ; or to forbid the payment of bounty, premium, or advance-pay to 
a recruit, volunteer, or citizen, who may enlist in the Regular Army, 
unless said recruit has received said payment before ; the object being 
to avoid paying the same individual twice. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- Oeneral. • 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 90. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, April 7, 1863. 
To facilitate the payment, in individnal cases, and to discharged 
soldiers, of the advanced bounty authorized to volunteers by act of 
Congress, approved July 5, 1862, and the premium authorized by 
General Orders IS'o. 74, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 
July 7, 1862, the following regulations will be observed : 

1. The advanced bounty and premium should be paid by the United 
States mustering and disbursing officer at the time of muster into ser- 
vice. If not paid then, the amounts will be entered upon the muster-in 
rolls, and will be so continued upon every subse<iuent muster and pay- 
roll, until the soldier is paid by a paymaster. 

2. When not paid before discharge, the amounts due for premium 
and bounty will be entered upon the duplicate certificates for pay, and 
the discharged soldier Avill be paid by a paymaster. Company com- 
manders will be careful to enter these amounts upon the soldier's cer- 
tificates. 

3. Mustering and disbursing officers have nothing to do with pay- 
ments to discharged soldiers. 

By order of the Secretarv of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 111.] 

War Department, Adjutant General's Office, 

Washington, May 1, 1863. 
1. From and after the first day of May, all enlistments of volunteers 
shall be under the special charge and direction of the Provost-Marshal 



17 

General, imder the rules and regulations heretofore made, which are 
hereby continued in force, and such other rules of the Department as 
may from time to time be made. All disbursing oflicers, and all other 
officers connected with the enlistment of volunteers, will report to him. 

2. Officers of regiments going out of service, by reason of the expi- 
ration of their term, may, with the consent of their respective governors, 
re-enlist their regiments, within thirty days from the expiration of the 
original service, for a term of three years, unless sooner discharged ; 
and upon the regiment being tilled up within the thirty days aforesaid, 
the officers shall be restored to their rank as'from the date of their 
original commissions. This, however, will give no claim to pay for 
the time between muster out and re-entry into service. 

3. The law provides that a man who enlists for three years, unless 
sooner discharged, is entitled to one month's pay in advance upon the 
mustering of his company into the service of the United States, or after 
he shall have been mustered into and joined a regiment already in the 
service, and to a bounty of one hundred dollars, twenty five dollars of 
which is to be paid in advance when his company is organized, muster- 
in rolls made out, and the mustering officer's certificate given thereto, 
or after he shall have been mustered into and joined a regiment already 
in the servi(!e. 

4. Hereafter, regiments of volunteers leaving the field on account of 
expiration of term of service will be permitted, on the application of 
their officers, who shall undertake to hold themselves responsible for 
their safe delivery, to take their arms and accouterments to the place of 
discharge, to be delivered to the governor of the State, or to officers 
appointed by him to receive them. The arms and accouterments will 
be held subject to re-issue to the men on re-enlistment in their former 
companies and regiments. 

By order of the Secretarv of War : 

E. D. TOWIs'SEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 163.] 

War Departmeimt, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, June 4, 1803. 
I. The following revised order, in relation to advance pay, bounties, 
and premiums, as i)aid by the United States, is published for the infor- 
mation of all concerned, and will govern in lieu of all other orders on 
the subject : 

A EESOLTTTION to encourage eulistinent.s in tlie Regular Army and volunteer forces. 

Resolved hy the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in Con- 
f/ress assembled, That so much of the ninth section of the act approved August third, 
eighteen hundred and sixty-one, entitled " An act for the better organization of the 
niilit.ary establishment," as abolishes the premium paid for bringing accepted recruits to 
the rendezvous, be, and the same is hereby, repealed, and hereafter a premium of two 
dollars shall be paid to any citizeu, non-commissioned officer, or soldier, for such ac- 
cepted recruit for the Regular Army [as] he may bring to the rendezvous. And every 
soldier who hereafter enlists, either in the Regular Army or the volunteers, for three 
years, or during the war, may receive his first month's pay in advance, upon the mus- 
tering of his company into the service of the United States, or after he shall have been 
mustered into and joined a regiment already in the service. 

Approved June 21, 1862. 

2 H 



i8 

KEGULAR AR:MY. 

1. For the two-dollar inemium, regular serviee, the fovm of the receipt- 
roll annexed will be used as a consolidated voucher for the payments. 
The payments will be made so soon as the recruit is accepted by the 
recruiting officer, and from the recruiting fund for the Kegular Army. 

VOLUNTEER SERVICE. 

2. xVIl accepted recruits, for volunteer organizations, will be paid a 
premium of two dollars. The premium may be paid to any citizen, non- 
commissioned oflicer, or soldier, for every accepted recruit who may enlist, 
or to the recruit in person, in case he presents himself. These payments 
will be made so soon as the recruit has been inspected by the surgeon, 
and mustered into service. 

The amounts will be entered on the muster-in roll, opposite the names 
of the recruits so paid, and charged to the fund for ^ collecting, drilling, 
and organizing volunteers.''^ For a voucher, a modified form of that used 
in the regular service will be used. 

REGULAR AND VOLUNTEER SERVICE. 

3. The month's pay in advance, for accepted regular and volunteer 
recruits, will be paid under such regulations as may be established by 
the Paymaster-General. 

II. During the continviance of the existing war, and under section G 
of the [act approved July 5, 1SG2, (General Orders 77, A. G. O., 1862, 
page 7,) twenty-Jive dollars of the one hundred dollars bounty will be 
paid to every accepted recruit of the regular and volunteer forces. 

These payments will be made as follows, viz : 

1. To recruits for volunteer organizations in the field when the said 
recruits are inspected and mustered into the service, and to those of the 
new organizations when their companies are organized, muster-in rolls 
made out, and the mustering officer's certificate given thereto. The 
amounts will be entered on the muster-in rolls, opposite the name of 
the recruits respectively. They will be accounted for under the head 
oi ^^ Bounty — volunteer recruiting service.'" To this end, an account cur- 
rent, separate from that for the fund for " collecting, drilling, and 
organizing volunteers," will be used, but the '• bounty-fund" will be 
disbursed by the regularly appointed mustering and disbursing officers. 

2. To recruits for the regular service when the recruit has been passed 
by the " board of inspectors," at the regimental or general service depot, 
as the case may be. The amounts under this head will be paid from the 
recruiting funds for the Kegular Army, and entered on the recruiting 
account current, opposite the names of the recruits, respectively ; and 
also on the first descriptive list of the soldier; whenever this list is 
given, before bounty lias been paid, an entry — " $25 bounty due for en- 
listment" — will be made thereon. 

In case of re-enlisted soldiers in the Regular Army, the entry, as to 
payment or non-payment, will be made on the first muster-roll, and the 
superintendent of the recruiting service will be notified of the fact. 

3. Vouchers for i)ayment will be in the form of consolidated receipt- 
rolls. 

III. Volunteer soldiers who, after the expiration of their term, re- 
enter the service for three years, or during the tear, receive the same boun- 
ties, advanced pay, and premiums, and are paid in the same manner, as 
men enlisted from civil life. 



19 

IV. To facilitate the payment of the $25 advanced bounty and $2 
premium, in individual cases of enlistment, and to discharged soldiers, 
when these amounts have not been paid at the time of muster into 
service, the following rules will govern : 

1. The amounts will be entered on the muster-in roll, and will be 
entered and continued on every subsequent muster and pay roll until 
the soldier is paid by the paymaster. 

2. When not paid before discharge, the amounts due for premium and 
bounty will be entered upon the duplicate certificates (final statements) 
for pay, and the discharged soldier will be paid by the paymaster. 
Company commanders Avill be careful to enter these amounts on the 
soldiers' final certificates. 

V. The following is an act to amend an act entitled "An act to au- 
thorize the employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and 
protecting public property," approved July twenty-two, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-one. (See General Orders No. 49, A. G. O., of 1861, 
page 3 ) 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Eepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That every non-commissionecl officer, j)rivate, or other person, who 
has been, or shall hereafter be, discharged from the Army of the United States within 
two years from the date of their enlistment, hy reason of wounds received in battle, ahall be 
entitled to receive the same bounty as is granted, or may be granted, to the same classes 
of persons who are discharged after a service, of two years, and all acts and parts of acts 
inconsistent with this are hereby repealed. 

Approved March 3, 1863. 

YI. Persons of African descent, who enlist under the act aj^proved 
July 17, 1862, (General Orders 91, A. G. O., 1862, page 25,) are entitled 
to " ten dollars per month and one ration ; three dollars of ivhich monthly 
pay may he in clothingJ^ 

By order of the Secretary of War: 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Official : 



Assistant Adjutant- General. 



We, the undersigned, do hereby aclnowJedge to have received from Lieut. , 

liegimrnt of , recruiting officer, [o?- from ,mustering and disbursing offi- 
cer,'] the sums opposite our names, respectively, being in full for amounts due us for procur- 
ing and bringing to the rendezvous accepted recruits. Our names are placed opposite the 
names of recruits so furnished, and we have signed duplicates hereof. 



Date. 



No. 



Name of recruit. 



Amount. 



Name of person pro- 
curing recruits.* 



Witness. 



Kemarks. 



* In case of volunteer recruits, tho name of the recruit will appear in tliis column in case the money 
was paid to him. 

I certify that the above is correct ; that the recruits accepted are "effective and able-bodied ;" and 
that, in accepting them, I have been strictly governed by paragraphs 9-^5 and 92ti, Recruiting Kegul a 
tions. 

, Lkutenant Infantry, 

Mtcruiting Officer. 



20 

NOTES . 

1. Act of February 13, ISfia, y)nl)lisho(l in G. O. Ko. 15, altlioii>rli juiiliiliitinjrrtiscliartreofjHuiorji from tl e 
service, does not autliorize tlicireulistiueut or muster iuto service, exceptwitli wi iiteft cunserU of parent, 
guardian, or manter, when under eighteen years of age. 

2. It should be borne in mind that the law povides for the enlistment of "efiective, able-bodied " 
men ; and if any oiHoer shall enlist any i)erson contrary to the true intent and meaning of the law, it is 
further provided that, for every ott'ensc, " he siiall forfeit and pay the amount of the bounty and clothing 
which the person so recruited may have received from the public, to be deducted out of the pay and 
emoluments of such otiicer." 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 1C5.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, Jtme 5, 1863. 

Under the law ot 17th July, 1862, and regulations of tlie Treasury 
Department in conformity therewith, the following rules for the rendi- 
tion of accounts of the Quartermaster's Department are established, 
and all regulations inconsistent therewith are revoked. 

1st. All officers of the Qnartermaster's Department who receive public 
money which they arenot authorized to retain as salary, pay, or emolument, 
shall render their money-accounts monthly, mailing or forwarding them 
addressed direct to the Third Auditor of the Treasury, at Washington, 
within ten days after the expiration of each successive month. The ac- 
counts and vouchers to be thus rendered, are : Forms Nos. 10 to 22, in- 
inclusive, and IS^os. 48 to 50 of the Eevised Regulations of the Army. 
These accounts and vouchers are to be made up in duplicate; one 
copy of each to be retained by the officer for his own protection, the 
other copy to be forwarded, as above required, direct to the Third Aud- 
itor, and not to the Quartermaster-General. 

2d. Whenever an officer ceases, from any reason, to be a disbursing 
officer, he will immediately render his final accounts, with vouchers, to 
the Third Auditor. 

3d. Monthly rei)orts and property-returns will be forwarded, not to 
the Treasury, but direct to the Quartermaster-General. They will all be 
rendered monthly instead of quarterly, and will be mailed or otherwise 
forwarded within ten days after the expiration of each successive 
month. 

The returns to be thus rendered are : Forms ISTos. 1 to 9, Xos. 23 to 
46, and Xos. 51 to 52, Eevised Regulations. The returns, Forms ISTos. 23 
and 51, should always be made out in triplicate; all the other papers in 
duplicate only. One complete set of these returns, with vouchers, should 
be retained by the officer for his own protection ; the rest to be sent to 
the Quartermaster-General. , 

It will be observed that two copial of the returus, Forms 23 and 51, 
will thus be forwarded to the Quartermaster-General, of which one only 
will be accompanied by abstracts and vouchers. 

4th. Officers who are not doing duty as quartermasters, who are not 
disbursing money, but who are responsible for public property received 
from the Quartermaster's Department, such as horses, clothing, camp 
and garrison equij)age, &c., will only forward to the Quartermaster- 
General the monthly returns of the property for which they are account- 
able, accompanied by vouchers. This includes company commanders, 
who should hereafter transmit tlieir returns of clothing and other quar- 
termaster's property to the Quartermaster-General monthly, instead of 
quarterly. 

5th, All officers doing duty in the Quartermaster's Department are 



21 

also required to make out and forward to the Quarterrnaster-Geueral, on 
the first day of each month, a personal report, giving their post-office 
address and a statement of the duty upon which they have been em- 
ployed since their last report. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWXSEXD, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

r General Orders No. 208. J 

War Department, Adjutant-(teneral's Office, 

Washington, July 6, 1863. 

I. Phonographic reporters employed under the authority of the 2Sth 
section of the act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, will be allowed 
not exceeding 810 per day, and, wheu the place of meeting of the court 
is changed, their actual traveling expenses ; but no reporter will be em- 
ployed except in cases of importance, and when the other duties of the 
judge-advocate will not allow him to take down the testimony in the 
ordinary way. 

II. Hereafter no officer or agent under the control of the AYar De- 
partment, disbursing i^ublic money, will pay any claim or account pre- 
sented through agents or collectors, except on regular power of attor- 
ney, executed after the account or claim is due and payable, and unless 
such agent or collector is considered by the disbursing officer amply 
able to re-imburse the United States, or the disbursing officer, in case 
such claim or account shall, subsequent to payment, iirove to be unjust 
or fraudulent; and when an account is presented in person by an indi- 
vidual who is not known to the disbursing officer, the latter will require 
such evidence of identity as will secure the Government against fraud. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEXD, 

Assistant Adjutant-General 

ExniBiT L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 233.1 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, July 28, 1863. 

I. Hereafter, before approving the tenders of resignation of disbursing 
officers, commanding generals will cause all public money and property 
in their hands to be turned over to some proper officer designated to 
receive the same ; and the fact that such action has been had will be 
indorsed on the resignation, and reported besides to the head of the 
proper staff department at Washington. 

II. The resignation of officers of volunteer service will only be ac- 
cepted under paragraph 1647, General Regulations, upon their exhibit- 
ing satisfactory evidence from the head of the Ordnance Department, 
and the proper accounting officers of the Treasury, that they have made 
all prescribed returns, and are in nowise indebted to the United States 
on account of ordnance. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

B. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjuta nt- General. 



22 

Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 280.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, August 10, 1803. 
The following regulation, promulgated in j)aragrapli II, General 
Orders No. 208, from the War Dei)artment, is rescinded : 

" II. Hereafter no officer or agent under the control of the War Department, dis- 
bursing public money, will pay any claim or account presented through agents or col- 
lectors, except on regular power of attorney, executed after the account or claim is due 
and payable, and unless such agent or collector is considered by the disbursing officer 
amply able to re-imburse the United States, or the disbursing officer, in case such claim 
or account shall, subsequent to payment, prove to be unjust or fraudulent ; and when 
an account is presented in person by an individual who is not known to the disbursing 
officer, the latter will require such evidence of identity as will secure the Government 
against fraud." 

Bj order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assista nt Adjutant- General. 

Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 325.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washi7igton, Septemher 28, 18G3. 

Paragraph 156, Revised Army Eegulations, 18G1, is hereby amended 
to read as follows : 

A reward of $30 will be paid for the apprehension and delivery of a 
deserter to an officer of the Army at the most convenient post or re- 
cruiting station. Eewards thus paid will be promptly reported by the 
disbursing officer to tbe officer commanding the company in which the 
deserter is mustered, and to the authority competent to order his trial. 
The reward of $30 will include the remuneration for all expenses in- 
curred for apprehending, securing, and delivering a deserter. 

All regulations and general orders in conflict with this are hereby 
revoked. 

Bv order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEXD, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 36G.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, November 13, 18G3. 

The following revised order is published for the guidance of muster- 
ing and disbursing officers in relation to their expenditures from the ap- 
propriation for " collecting, drilling, and organizing volunteers," and all 
previous orders or regulations conflicting therewith are hereby revoked : 

I. In organizing new regiments of volunteers — or companies, if they 
are independent ones — the necessary transportation, as well as subsist- 
ence of the recruits, jirior to the completion of the organization, will be 
chargeable against the appropriation for "collecting, drilling, and organiz- 
ing volunteers ;" or, should a regiment fail to complete its organization, 
until the recruits for the said regiment are transferred to, or consolidated 



23 

with, another organization. After the organization of the regiments is 
complete, and they have been inspected by the mnstering officer for the 
State or District, transportation will be provided by the Quartermaster's 
Department, and subsistence by the Subsistence Department. 

II. All passes for transportation by railroad will fully explain, in the 
case of officers, the necessity for the journey and the nature of the ser- 
vice ; in the case of enlisted men, the number of recruits, their company 
and regiment, and whether prior or subsequent to the muster-in of the 
organization to which the recruits belong ; or, if the recruits be for an 
old organization, whether prior or subsequent to the muster-in of the 
recruits themselves. A complete statement of these facts is necessary 
to settle satisfactorily the accounts of railroad companies. 

III. The certificate to all vouchers for transportation by private con- 
veyance must state that the prices charged were the current rates of the 
place where the expense was incurred ; also, that transportation by rail- 
road or steamboat could not be obtained. The vouchers must be ap- 
proved by the superintendent of the volunteer recruiting service, or chief 
mustering and disbursing officer of the district, and show that the ex- 
penditure was incurred for recruits of old organizations prior to muster, 
or of new regiments prior to complete organization, or for officers and 
enlisted men traveling under orders on the recruiting service, after hav- 
ing been assigned to duty by the superintendent. The number of men, 
their company and regiment, the number of miles traveled, and rate per 
mile, will, in each case, be specified, as in passes for railroad-transpor- 
tation. 

IV. Subsistence for recruiting parties detailed from regiments in the 
field, and for recruits of regiments already organized, will be provided 
by the Subsistence Department. 

V. Eecruiting parties and recruits, both of old and new organizations, 
will be quartered at the rendezvous, if possible ; but when convenience 
and economy require it, a contract for lodgings may be made by the 
superintendent, or the chief mustering and disbursing o^cer of the district, 
not to exceed twelve cents per night for each man. The rent of rendez- 
vous, recruiting offices, and accounts for lodgings, will be paid from the 
appropriation for " collecting, drilling, and organizing volunteers,'' when 
approved by the superintendent, but not otherwise. 

VI. Subsistence for new organizations, as specified in par. I of this 
order, will be furnished under contracts made by, or under the direction 
of, the superintendents, subject to the approval of the Provost-Marshal- 
General. 

VII. All vouchers for subsistence will be accompanied by an abstract 
of issues, (see Forms 17, Subsistence Department, Army Kegulations of 
1861, and 19, of Army Regulations, 1863,) certified by the officer order- 
ing the issues. In the column of remarks, the company and regiment 
to which the recruits belong will be stated. The vouchers will specify 
the date of contract, by whom made and approved, and be supported by 
a certificate of the superintendent or disbursing officer ordering the is- 
sues, that the expense was necessary for the public service for troops 
raised for the United States ; that the recruits charged for were present 
at the time the orders for rations were signed, according to the morning 
report of the officer in charge ; that they were actually enlisted prior to 
the date charged for ; and that the regimental organization was not com- 
plete at the date of the account. 

VIII. All disbursing officers authorized to purchase public property* 
from the appropriation for " collecting, drilling, and organizing volun- 
teers," will be held strictly accountable for every article purchased, and 



24 

the property must be accounted for as required by pars. 962 aud 1040, 
Army Eegulations of 1861, in order that the accounts may pass to the 
credit of the ofticer making the purchases. 

IX. In addition to knives, forks, tin plates, and tin cups, authorized 
in General Orders No. 70, of 1861, spoons will be allowed to volunteers. 

X. Superintendents of the volunteer recruiting service, and chief mus- 
tering and disbursing officers, will, in future, be more careful in their 
instructions to recruiting officers under their directions, as it is believed 
that a large amount of money has been improperly expended by them 
in good faith, and through ignorance of the regulations, which cannot 
be re-iinbursed. It should be understood that they have no right to in- 
cur expense without proper authority, and no authority to expend money 
on account of the United States for recruits in their charge, except in 
cases of extreme emergency, when the vouchers therefor should fully 
explain the necessity, be approved by the superintendent, and presented 
for payment before the recruiting officer leaves the State. Advance 
bounties and premiums will under no circumstances be paid by recruit- 
ing officers. 

XI. All expenses incurred on account of recruits, (hereafter enlisted 
by recruiting officers, either for old or new regiments,) who shall be re- 
jected, after medical inspection, for obvious disability e.m/iH^ at the time 
of their enlistment, will be charged on the muster-in roll, ojiposite the 
name of the officer enlisting them, and stopped from any pay which 
may thereafter be due him from the Government. 

XII. Eeturns of property in charge of recruiting officers should be 
forwarded monthly to the superintendent or chief mustering and dis- 
bursing officer of the district for examination and approval, and trans- 
mitted by them to the Provost-Marshal-General, as soon as practicable 
after the expiration of the month for which they may be due. 

XIII. All vouchers for commutation of quarters and fuel of recruiting 
officers, detailed in accordance with General Orders Xos. 105, of 1861, 
and 8, of 1862, must be accompanied — 1st, by a certified copy of the 
original order detailing them ; 2d, by the order of the superintendent 
assigning them to duty, or his certificate that they have been so assigned ; 
also a copy of the order relieving them from duty, (with the final ac- 
coimts.) The certificates prescribed in Form 21, Quartermaster's De- 
l)artraent. Army Regulations, must in all cases be signed by the proper 
officers, or the accounts will not be allowed. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TO\YXSEXD, 

A ss ista n t A djuta n t- Genera I. 



Exhibit L— Continued. 

War Department, Adjutant-Gf.neral's Office, 

^yashington, D. C, December 21, 1863. 

Sir: The following instructions from the Secretary of War are fur- 
nished for your information and guidance : 

Soldiers returning to their regiments from furlough, who present sat- 
isfactory evidence that they are unable to provide transportation, will, 
upon the order of the military commander, chief mustering and disburs- 
ing officer, provost-marshal, or quartermaster, be furnished with trans- 
portation to their regiment or station. The quartermaster who furnishes 
the transportation will note the amount on the furlough, and report it 
to the company commander, in order that it may be charged on the rolls 
against the pay of the soldier 



25 

Transportation to re enlisted soldiers is provided for by General-Or- 
ders No. 376, current series. 
I bave the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 



Assistdut Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[Circular No. 45.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Opfice, 

Waiihington, June 9, 1864. 

Under the act of Congress approved July 17, 1862, entitled "An act 
to provide for the more prompt settlement of the accounts of disbursing 
officers," with the requirements thereunder, promulgated by circular 
approved by the Secretary of War, April 10, 1863, the following regula- 
tions will govern those concerned : 

All officers disbursing moneys on account of the contingent fund of 
the Adjutant-General's Department will render, direct to the Second 
Auditor of the Treasury, a duly certified monthly statement of such 
moneys on hand from last returns ; receipts within the month ; balances 
unexpended and where deposited ; within ten days after the expiration 
ofeach successive month. 

Such officers will also render, direct to the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury, their accounts quarterly, with the vouchers necessary to a 
correct settlement thereof, within at least one month after the expira- 
tion of each successive quarter, and one copy of the same, without 
vouchers, direct to the Adjutant-General of the Army. 

Accounts and vouchers will be rendered forthwith, whenever officers 
cease to disburse, from change of duty or otherwise. 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Amended: see circulars April 8, 1867, and October 10, 1870. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 91.] 
Order organizing Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

War Depart:ment, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, May 12, 1865. 

I. By direction of the President, Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard is assigned 
to duty in the War Department as Commissioner of the Bureau of Ref- 
ugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, under the act of Congress 
entitled "An act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and 
refugees," to perform the duties and exercise all the rights, authority, 
and jurisdiction vested by the act of Congress in such Commissioner. 
General Howard will enter at once upon the duties of Commissioner 
specified in said act. 

II. The Quartermaster-General will, without dela^', assign and furuish 
suitable quarters and apartments for the said bureau. 

III. The Adjutant-General will assign to the said bureau the number 
of competent clerks authorized by the act of Congress. 

By order of the President of the United States : 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



• . 26 

Exhibit L — Continued. 

Act referred to in General Orders Xo. 91, {A. G. 0.,) 1865 
AN ACT to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and refugees. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That there is hereby established iu the War Department, to con- 
tinue dnring the present war of rebellion, and for one year thereafter, a Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, to which shall be committed, as herein- 
after provided, the supervision and management of all abandoned lauds, and the con- 
trol of all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel States, or from auy 
district of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the Army, iinder 
such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the bureau and approved 
by the President. The said bureau shall be under the management and control of a 
commissioner to be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent 
of the Senate, whose compensation shall be three thousand dollars per annum, and 
such number of clerks as may ba assigned to him by the Secretary of War, not exceed- 
ing one chief clerk, two of the fourth class, two of the third class, and five of the first 
class. And the Commissioner, and all. persons appointed under this act, shall, before 
entering upon their duties, take the oath of office prescribed in an act entitled "An 
act to prescribe an oath of office, and for other purposes," approved July second, eight - 
een hundred and sixty-two; and the Commissioner and chief clerk shall, before enter- 
ing upon their duties, give bonds to the Treasurer of the Uuited States, the former in 
the sum of $50,000, and the latter in the sum of $10,000, conditioned for the faithful 
discharge of their duties, respectively, with securities to be approved as sufficient by 
the Attorney-General, which bonds shall be filed iu the office of the First Comptroller 
of the Treasury, to be by him put iu suit for the benefit of auy injured party upon any 
breach of the conditions thereof. 

Sec. 2. And be it farther enacted, That the Secretai'y of War may direct such issues 
of jjrovisions, clothing, and fuel as he may deem needful for the immediate and tempo- 
rary shelter and supply of destitute and sufferiug refugees and freedmen, and their 
wives and children, under such rules and regulations as he may direct. 

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the President may, by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, appoint an assistant commissioner for each of the States declared 
to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten in number, who shall, under the direction of 
the Commissioner, aid in the execution of the provisions of this act ; and he shall give 
a boud to the Treasurer of the United States in the sum of $20,000, in the form and 
manner prescribed in the first section of this act. Each of said commissioners shall 
receive an annual salary of $2,500 iu full compensation for all his services. And any 
military officer may be detailed and assigned to duty under this act without increase 
of pay or allowances. The Commissioner shall, before the commencement of each 
regular session of Congress, make full report of his proceedings, nith exhibits of the 
state of his accounts, to the President, who shall communicate the same to Congress, 
aud shall also make special reports whenever required to do so by the President or 
either House of Congress; aud the assistant commissioners shall make quarterly re- 
ports of their proceedings to the Commissioner, aud also such other special reports as, 
from time to time, may be required. 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Commissioner, under the direction of the 
President, shall have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freed- 
men, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary States as shall have been aban- 
doued, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, 
or otherwise; and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedmau as aforesaid, 
there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such laud, and the person to whom 
it was so assigned shall be protected in the use and enjoyment of the land for the term 
of three years at an annual rent not exceeding six per centum upon the value of such laud 
as it was appraised by the State authorities in the year eighteen hundred and sixty for 
the purpose of taxation ; and in case no such appraisal can be found, then the rental 
shall be based upon the estimated value of the laud iu said year, to be ascertained in 
such manner as the Commissioner may by regulation prescribe. At the end of said 
term, or at auy time during said term, the occupants of any parcels so assigned may 
purchase the land aud receive such title thereto as the United States can convey, upon 
paying therefor the value of the land as ascertained aud fixed for the purpose of deter- 
mining the annual rent aforesaid. 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That all acts and parts of acts incousistent with the 
provisions of this act are hereby repealed. 

Approved March 3. 1865. 



27 

Exhibit L — Coutiuued. 

[General Orders No. 110.] 

War Department, Adjutant General's Office, 

Washington, June 7, 1865. 

The followiug order of the President of the United States (in relation 
to transfer of abandoned lands, fnnds, and property, set apart for the 
use of freedmen) to the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, is published for the information and guidance of all concerned : 

Executive Mansiox, Washington, D. C, June 2, 1865. 

Whereas, by an act of Congress approved March third, eighteen hundred and sixty- 
five, there -was established in the War Department a Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands, and to -^vhich, in accordance with the said act of Congress, is 
committed the supervision and management of all abandoned lauds, and the control of 
all subjects relating to refugees and freedmen from rebel States, or from any district 
of country within the territory embraced in the operations of the Army, under such 
rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the head of the Bureau and approved 
by the President ; and whereas it appears that the management of abandoned 
lands, and subjects relating to refugees and freedmen, as aforesaid, have been and still 
are, by orders based on military exigencies, or legislation based on previous statutes, 
partly in the hands of military officers disconnected with said Bureau, and partly in 
charge of officers of the Treasury Department ; it is therefore 

Ordered, That all officers of the Treasury Department, all military officers, and all 
others in the service of the United States, turn over to the authorized officers of said 
Bureau all abandoned lands and property contemplated in said act of Congress, ap- 
proved March third, eighteen huudred and sixty-five, establishing the Bureau of Refu- 
gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, that may now be under or within their control. 
They will also turn over to such officers all funds collected by tax or otherwise, for the 
benefit of refugees or freedmen, or accruing from abandoned lands, or property set apart 
for their use, and will transfer to them all official records connected with the adminis- 
tration of ali'airs which pertain to said Bureau. 

ANDREW JOHNSON. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. p. TOWNSEXD, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 4.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, January 18, 18G0. 
Hereafter, when disbursing officers, in payment of accounts, draw 
checks or drafts on funds placed to their credit with assistant treasurers 
or other depositaries of the United States, they will note upon the re- 
ceipt taken for such payment the number, date, and amount of such 
check or draft given in payment, and designate the assistant treasurer 
or depositary upon whom it is drawn. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assisant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 39.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, June 19, 18GG. 

The following act of Congress is published for the information and 
government of all concerned : 

AJN ACT to regulate and secure the safe-keepins of public money intrusted to disbursing officers of 

the United States. 
Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America 



28 

in Congress asscmhhd, That from aiul after tlie i>assa<!;e of this act it shall be the duty of 
every disbursing officer of the United States having any public ujoney intrusted to him 
for disbursement to deposit the same with the Treasurer or some one of the assistant 
treasurers of the United States, and to draw for the same only as it may be required for 
payments to be made by him in pursuance of law; and all transfers from the Treasury 
of the United States to a disbursing officer shall Ije by draft or warrant on the Treas- 
ury or an assistant treasurer of the United States : Provided, That in places where there 
is no treasurer uor assistant treasurer of the United States, the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury may, when he deems it essential to the public interest, specially authorize in 
writing the deposit of such public money in any other public depository, or, in writing, 
authorize the same to be kept in any other manner, and under such rules and regula- 
tions as he maj' deem most safe and etlectiuil to facilitate the payments to public cred- 
itors. 

Sec. 2. And he it further enacted, That if any disbursing officer of the United States 
shall deposit any i)ublic money intrusted to him in any place or in any manner, except 
as authorized by law, or shall convert to his own use in any way whatever, or shall 
loan, with or without interest, or shall for any purpose uot prescribed by law withdraw 
from the treasurer or any assistant treasurer, or any authorized depositary, or shall 
for any purpose not prescribed by law transfer or apply any portion of the public 
money intrusted to him, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged an embezzlement 
of the money so deposited, converted, used, loaned, withdrawn, transferred, or applied, 
and every such act is hereby declared a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be 
punished by imprisonment for a term not less than one year, uor more than ten years, 
or by fine not inore than the amount embezzled nor less than one thousand dollars, or 
by both such hue and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court. 

Sec. [3.] And he it farther enacted, That if any banker, broker, or any person, not an 
authorized depositary of public money, shall -knowingly receive from any disbursing 
officer, or collector of internal revenue, or other agent of the United States, any public 
money on deposit or by way of loan or accommodation, with or without interest, or 
otherwise than in payment of a debt against the United States ; or shall use, transfer, 
convert, appropriate, or apply any portion of the public money for any purpose not 
prescribed by law, or shall counsel, aid, or abet any disbursing officer or collector of 
internal revenue or other agent of the United States in so doing, every such act shall 
be deemed and adjudged an embezzlement of the money so deposited, loaned, trans- 
ferred, used, converted, appropriated, or applied ; and any president, cashier, teller, 
director, or other officer of any bank or banking association who shall violate any of 
the provisions of this act shall be deemed and adjudgedguilty of embezzlement of pub- 
lic money, and punished as provided in section two of this act. 

Approved June 14, 1866. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Exhibit L — Contiuued. 

[General Orders No. 37.] 

War Depaetment, Ad.jutant-General's Office, 

Washington, June 7, 186G. 
The following acts of Congress are published for the information and 
government of all concerned : 

I. [Public— No. 44.] 

AX ACT to extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims. 

Be it enacted hji the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assemhled. That the Court of Claims shall have jurisdiction to hear and deter- 
mine the claim of any paymaster, quartermaster, commissary of subsistence, or other 
disbursing officer of the United States, or of his administrators or executors, forrelief from 
responsibility on account of losses by capture or otherwise, while in the line of his duty, 
of Government funds, vouchers, records, and papers in his charge, and for which such 
officer was and is held responsible: Provided, That an apiieal may be taken to the 
Supreme Court, as in other cases. 

Sec. 2. Aud he it further enacted, That whenever said court shall have ascertained the 
facts of any such loss to have been without fault or neglect on the part of any such 
officer, it shall make a decree, setting forth the amount thereof, upon which the proper 
accounting officers of the Treasury shall allow to such officer the amount so decreed as 
a credit in the settlement of his accouuts. 

Approved May 9, 1866. 



29 
11. [Public— No. 47.] 

AN ACT to amend an art entitled "An act relating to habeas corpiia. and regnlatinjr .indicial inoceed- 
ings in certain cases," approved Marcli tliird, eigliteeu liundied aud sixty-three. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assemhled, That any search, seizure, arrest, or imprisontneut made, or any acts 
done or omitted to be doue duriug the said rebellion, by any officer or person, under 
and by virtue of any order, written or verbal, general or special, issued by the President 
or Secretary of War, or by any military officer of the United States holding the com- 
mand of the department, district, or place within which such seizure, search, arrest, or 
imprisonment was made, done, or conmiitted, or any acts were so done, or omitted to 
be done, either by the person or officer to whom the order was addressed, or for whom 
it was intended, or by any other person aiding or assisting him therein, shall be held, 
and are hereby declared, to come witliin the purview of the act to which this is 
amendatory, and within the purview of the fourth, fifth, and sixth sections of the 
said act of March third, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, for all the purposes of 
defense, transfer, appeal, error, or limitation provided therein. But no such order 
shall, by force of this act, or the act to ivhich this is an amendment, he a defense to any 
suit or action for any act done or omitted to he done after the passage of this act. 

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That when the said order is in writing, it shall be suf- 
ficient to produce in evidence the original, with proof of its authenticity, or a certified 
copy of the same ; or if sent by telegraph, the production of the telegram purporting to 
emanate from such military officer shall be primafacie evidence of its authenticity ; or if 
the original of such order or telegram is lost or cannot be produced, secondai-y evidence 
thereof shall be admissible, as in other cases. 

Sec. '.^. And be it further enacted, That tlje right of removal from the State court into 
the circuit court of the United States, provided in the fifth section of the act to which 
Ihis is amendatory, may be exercised after the appearance of the defendant and the 
filing of his plea or other defense in said court, or at any term of said court subsequent 
to tlie term when the appearance is entered, and before a jury is impaneled to try the 
same ; but nothing herein contained shall be held to abridge the right of such removal, 
after final judgment in the State court, nor shall it be necessary in the State court to 
offer or give surety for the filing of copies in the circuit court of the United States ; 
but, on the filing of the petition, verified as provided in said fifth section, the further 
proceedings in the State court shall cease, and not be resumed until a certificate, under 
the seal of the circuit court of the United States, stating that the petitioner has failed 
to file copies in the said circuit court, at the next term, is produced. 

Sec. 4. And beit further enacted. That if the State court shall, notwithstanding the 
performance of.all things re(|uired for the removal of the case to the circuit court afore- 
said, proceed further in said cause or prosecution, before said certificate is produced, 
then, in that case, all such further proceedings shall be void and of none effect ; and 
all parties, judges, officers, and other persons thenceforth proceeding thereunder, or 
by color thereof, shall be liable in damages therefor to the party aggrieved, to be re- 
covered by action in a court of the State having proper jurisdiction, or in a circuit 
court of the United States for the district in which such further proceedings may have 
been had, or where the party, officer, or other person, so offending, shall be found ; and 
upon a recovery of damages in either court, the party plaintiff shall be entitled to 
doiable costs. 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the clerk of the State 
court to furnish copies of the papers and files in the case to the party so petitioning 
for the removal ; and upon the refusal or neglect of the clerk to furnish such co]nes, 
the said party may docket the case in the circuit court of the United States ; and there- 
upon said circuit court shall have jurisdiction therein, and may upon proof of such 
refusal or neglect of the clerk of the State court, and upon reasonable notice being 
given to the plaintiff, require him to file a declaration or petition therein ; and upon 
his default may order a nonsuit, and dismiss the case at the costs of the plaintiff', which 
dismissal shall be a bar to any further suit touching the matter in controversy. 
Approved May 11, 1866. 

Bv order of the Secretary of War : 

W. A. NICHOLS, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L— Continued. 

[General Orders No. 68.] 

War DEPAIIT3IENT, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washingtoji, August 24, 18G6. 
The following acts and resolutions of Congress are published for the 
information and government of all concerned : 

I. Resolution authorizing Secretaries of War and Navy to place vessels at disposal 
of commissioners of quarantine. 

II. Act to provide for settlement of accounts of certain public officers for moneys 
expended for use of refugees or freedmen. 

III. Resolution in relation to public lands at Springfield and Harper's Ferry armo- 
ries. 

IV. Resolution authorizing Secretary of War to grant the use of a portion of mili- 
tary reserve on Saint Clair River for railroad purposes. 

V. Resolution to prevent the further enforcement of the special five per cent, income 
tax imposed against officers and soldiers. 

VI. Resolution authorizing the Secretary of War to settle with the Territory of 
Colorado for the militia employed in the service. 

VII. Act to provide for appointment of a commission to examine and report upon 
certain claims of the State of Iowa for forage, &c. 

VIII. Act to re-imburse the State of Pennsylvania for moneys advanced Government 
for war purposes. 

IX. Act to re-imburse the State of West Virginia for moneys expended in suppress- 
ing the rebellion. 

X. Resolution granting to Union Pacific Railroad Company right of way through 
military reserves. 

XI. Resolution providing for examination of accounts of State of Massachusetts 
for moneys expended for coast defense. 

XII. Resolution authorizing Secretary of War to transfer certain stores to National 
Home for Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans. 

XIII. Resolution granting certain property to Soldiers' Orphans' Home of Iowa. 



I.— [Public resolution— No. 16.] 

JOINT IlESGLUTION authorizing the Secretaries of "War and Navy to place hulks and vessels at the 
disposal of commissioners of quarantine, or other proper authorities, at ports of the L'nited States for 
one year. 

Be it resolved hy the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America 
in Conf/ress assembled, That the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy be, 
and they are hereby, respectively authorized, in their discretion, to place gratuitously 
at the disposal of the commissioners of quarantine, or the i^roper authorities of any 
of the ports of the United States, to be used by them temporarily for quarantine pur- 
poses, such vessels or hulks belonging to the United States as are not required for other 
uses of the National Government, subject to such restrictions and regulations as the 
said Secretariesmay respectively deem necessary to impose for the preservation thereof: 
Prodded, That this resolution shall continue in force one year from its passage. 

Approved March 24, 1866. 



II.— [Public— No. 72.] 

AN ACT to provide for the settlement of accounts of certain public officers. 

Be it enacted hxj the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That all moneys raised in the United States for the support of refu- 
gees or freedmen, and received by any officer of the United States Army, shall be 
charged against such officer on the books of the Treasury Department and accounted 
for by him in like manner as if such moneys had been drawn from the Treasury of the 
United States ; and if any part thereof shall have been expended for the use of refugees 
or freedmen, the same shall be passed to the credit of the officer, if upon examination 
of his accounts, it shall appear to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury De- 
partment that the amount exiieuded was properly disbursed for such refugees or freed- 



31 

men ; and on the adjustment of the accounts of the officer, if any balance shall remain 
in the hands of snch officer, the same shall be paid into the Treasury of the United 
States, for a fund for the relief of refugees and freedmen. And any officer having such 
balance in his hands, who, after being duly required, shall refuse cr neglect to pay 
over the same, or who shall, after due notice, fail to settle his accounts, shall be pro- 
ceeded against in the same manner as is provided for by existing laws in the case of 
disbursing officers who neglect or refuse to account for moneys drawn from the Treas- 
ury of the United States. 

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That where accounts are rendered for expenditures 
for refugees or freedmen, under the approval and sanction of the proper officers, and 
which shall have been proper and necessary, but cannot be settled for want of specific 
appropriations, the same may be paid out of the fund for the relief of refugees and 
freedmen, on the approval of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees and Freed- 
men. 

Approved June 15, 1866. 



III. — [Public resolution — No. 18.] 
JOINT RESOLUTION in relation to the public lands appertaining to the armory at Springfield. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the Vniied States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the first section of a joint resolution approved June seven- 
teenth, eighteen hundred and forty-four, entitled "A resolution relating to the public 
lands appertaining to the armories at Si)ringfield and Harper's Ferry," is hereby re- 
vived, re-enacted, and continued in force. 

Approved April 4, 1866, 



IV. — [Public resolution — No. 5.] 

JOINT RESOLUTION anthorizin<r the Secretary of T\'ar to grant the use of a poition of military re 
serve on Saint Clair River, in the State of Michigan, for railroad purposes. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to 
grant to Guerdon O. Williams, of the city of Detroit, in the State of Michigan, and 
his associates, the use of so much of the military reserve on the Saint Clair River, in the 
State of Michigan, known as the site of Fort Gratiot, as is necessary for extending a 
horse railroad from Port Huron City to the depot of the Port Huron and Detroit Rail- 
road, at such rental and upon such terms and conditions as to him may seem proper, 
reserving to the United States, however, the right of removing the Vails, ties, and 
other parts of said road whenever the Secretary of War shall direct, without any claim 
or right for damages on the part of the said Williams and associates, or their legal rep- 
resentatives. 

Approved January 31, 1866. 



v.— [Public resolution — No. 79. J 

JOINT RESOLUTION to prevent the further enforcement of the joint resolution [No. 77 1 approved 
July 4, !864. against officers and soldiers of the United States who hf>ve been honorably discharged, so 
as to relieve them from the further payment of the special five per cent, income tax imposed thereby. 

Whereas by the joint resolution (No. 77) of Congress approved July fourth, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-four, a special income tax of five per cent, on all incomes exceeding 
six hundred dollars was directed to be assessed and collected, and was enforced gen- 
erally upon all citizens accessible to the revenue officers, but was not enforced against 
all our soldiers then in the field in the active service of the country ; and 

Whereas since the surrender of the insurrectionary armies and the disbanding 
and return of the Federal soldiers to their homes, said tax is being, with manifest 
hardship, assessed and collected of them in many parts of the contry : Therefore, 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That said special tax, as imposed, shall not be further enforced 
against officers or soldiers lately in the service of the United States, and who have 
been honorably discharged therefrom, and that the Secretary of the Treasury direct 
the proper observance of this resolution by all revenue officers. 

Approved July 28, 1866. 



J" 
YI. — [Public resolution— No. 78.] 

JOINT RESOLFTIOX authorizing tbe Secretary of "War to settle with the Territory of Cnh.rado for 
the militia of said Tei-ritory employed in the service of the Uuited States iu the years eighteen hun- 
dred and sixtj'-four and eigiiteeu hundred and sixty-five. 

Be it resolved hy ilie Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United States of America 
■in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be authorized "to settle with the prop- 
er authorities of the Territory of Colorado for the services of the First Regiment of 
Colorado Mounted Militia called into the service of the Uuited States ou the requisi- 
tiou of Colonel Thomas Moonlight, iu the year eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and 
for the services of any other militia forces of the said Territory which were employed 
in the service of the United States on the call of the governor of the Territory, in the 
year eighteen hundred and sixty-four, allowing in such settlement all amounts paid 
ijy the Territory to the said troops for i)ay, use of horses, clothing, and other proper 
allowances duriug the time when they were so actually iu service; and that he report 
the amount found to be justly due to said Territory ou such account to Congress in 
December next. 

Approved July 28, 1866. 



VII.— [PuBLic-No. 145.] 

AX ACT providing for the appointment of a commission to examine and report upon certain claims of 

the State of Iowa. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, 
authorized and required to appoint a commissioner, whose duty it shall be to examine 
and report, on or before the first day of December next, upon the claim of the State 
of Iowa for forage, transportation, subsistence, and clothing furnished by said State to 
certain volunteers of said State, who, under the command of Colonels Morledge and 
Edwards, and at the request of certain officers commanding troops of the United States 
iu the State of Missouri, marched into the State of Missouri to co-operate with the 
troops of the United States iu that State in suppressing the rebellion. Also the claim 
of the State of Iowa for repayment of certain moneys paid by said State in raising, 
arming, equipping, paying, and subsisting certain troops of the State maintained by 
the State on the southern and northwestern borders thereof duriug the late rebellion, 
for the purpose of defending the State against attacks by bushwhackers aud Indians. 
And also the claim of said State for compensation for certain forage procured aud bar- 
racks built by the State ou the northwestern border thereof, and turned over by the 
State to, and used by, the Uuited States. 

Approved July 25, 1866. 



VIIL— [Public— No. 29.] 

AX ACT to re-imburse the State of Pennsylvania for moneys advanced Government for war purposes 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentafives of the United States of America 
in Congress assenibled, That to supply a deficiency in paying the Army under the act of 
Maxell fourteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-four, and to re-imburse the State of 
Pennsylvania for money expended for payment of militia in the service of the Uuited 
♦States, the sum of eight hundred thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be neces- 
sary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money iu the Treasury not otherwise appro- 
priated: Provided, That before the same is paid the claim of the said State shall be 
again examined and settled by the Secretary of War. 

Approved Ajiril 12, 1866. 



IX.— £Pui5Lic — No. 76.] 

AN ACT to re-imburse the State of West Virginia for moneys expended for the United States in 
enrolling, eciuipping, and paying military forces to aid iu suppressing the rebellion. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatires of the United Slates of America 
in Congress assembled, That immediately after the passage of this act the President shall 
appoint three commissiouers, whose duty it shall be to ascertain the amount of moneys 
expended by the State of West Virginia in enrolling, supplying, equipping, subsisting, 
transporting, and paying such State forces as have been called into service in said 
State since the twentieth day of June, eighteen huudred aud sixty-one, to act in con- 



33 

cert with the United States forces in the suppression of rebellion against the United 
States. 

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the commissioners so appointed shall proceed at 
once to examine all the cxiMMidirares made by said State for the purposes herein named, 
allowing only for disbursements made and amounts assumed by the State for enrolling, 
equipping, subsisting, transporting, supplying, and paying such troops as were called 
into service by the governor, at the request of the United States department commander 
commanding the district in which West Virginia may at the time have been included, 
or by the express order, consent, or concurrence of such commander, or which may 
have been employed in suppressing rebellion in said State. And no allowance shall be 
made for any troops which did not perform actual military service in full concert and 
co-operation with the authorities of the United States, and subject to their orders. 

Sec. 3. And he it further enacted, That in making up said account, for the convenience 
of the accounting officers of the Government, the commissioners shall state separately 
the amounts expended, I'espectively, for enrolling, equipping, arming, subsisting, trans- 
porting, and paying said troops, and from the aggregate amount they shall deduct the 
amount of direct tax due by the said State to the United States under the act entitled 
"An act to provide increased revenue from imports, pay interest on the public debt, and 
for other purjioses," approved August 5, 1861. 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That in the adjustment of accounts under this act 
the commissioners shall not allow for any expenditure or compensation for service at 
a rate greater than was at the time authorized by the laws of the United States in 
similar cases. 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That so soon as said commissioners shall have made 
up said account and ascertained the balance, as herein directed, they shall make writ- 
ten report thereof, showing the different items of expenditure, as hereinbefore stated, 
to the Secretary of the Treasury, who shall cause the same to be examined by the 
j)roper accounting officers of the Treasury, and said officers shall audit the accounts 
as in ordinary cases ; and if from their reports it shall appear that any sum remains 
due to the said State, he shall draw his warrant for the same, payable to the gover- 
nor of said State, and deliver it to him. 

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted. That the commissioners to be appointed as aforesaid 
shall, before proceeding to the discharge of their duties, be sworn that they Avill care- 
fully examine the accounts existing between the United States and the State of West 
Virginia, and that they will, to the best of their ability, make a just, true, and impar- 
tial statement thereof, as required by this act. They shall receive such compensation 
for their services as may be determined bj' the Secretary of the Treasury. 

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted. That the sura of three hundred and sixty-eight 
thousand five hundred and forty-eight dollars and thirty-seven cents be, and the same 
is hereby, appropriated to carry this act into effect. 

Aj)proved .June 21, 1866. 

X. — [Public resolution — No. 66.] 

A KESOLUTIOX granting the right of way through military reserves to the Union Pacific Kailroad 

Company and its branches. 

Besolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. That, subject to approval by the President, the right of way, one 
hundred feet in width, is hereby granted to the Union Pacific Eailroad Company and 
the companies constructing the branch roads connecting therewith, for the construc- 
tion and operation of their roads over and upon all military reserves through which 
the same may pass; and the President is hereby authorized to set apart to the Union 
Pacific Railway Company, eastern division, twenty acres of the Fort Riley military 
reservation for depot and other purposes in the bottom opposite "Riley City;" also 
fractional section " one" on the west side of said reservation, near Junction City, for 
the same purposes ; and also to restore, from time to time, to the public domain, any 
portion of said military reserve over which the Union Pacific Railroad or any of its 
branches may pass, and which shall not be required for military purposes : Provided, 
That the President shall not permit the location of any such railroad or the diminution 
of any such reserve in any manner so as to impair its usefulness for military purposes, 
so long as it shall be required therefor. 

Approved July 26, 1866. 

XI.— [Public resolution — No. 65.] 

A RESOLUTION providing for the examination of the accounts of the State of Massachusetts for 
moneys expended during the war for coast defense. 

Besolved btj the Senate and Rouse of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled. That the President of the United States be, and he is hereby, author- 

3 H E 



34 

ized and requested to appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, two 
commissioners, who shall examine into the claim of the State of Massachusetts for 
moneys expended for coast defense during the war, and shall make a full and complete 
report thereon to Congress at its next session. 
Approved July 26, ldG6. 



XII.— [Public resolution — No. 13. J 

JOINT RESOLUTION authorizing the Secretary of "War to transfer to the National Home for 
Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans, of Wasliington City, certain stores not needed for the use of the 
Government. 

Be it resolved iy the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized to 
deliver to the lady directors of the National Home for Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphans, 
of Washington City, for the use and aid of that society in its benevolent objects, such 
blankets, bedding, and other furniture and articles as may be proper for their pur- 
poses, and as are now on hand in the stores of the Surgeon-General's Department, and 
no longer needed for Government account, the Secretary to determine, at his discre- 
tion, the specific amount and character of stores thus to be appropriated, and of which 
due account shall be taken. 

Approved March 10, 1866. , 



XIII. — [Public resolution— No. 4.] 
JOINT EESOLUTION granting certain public property to the Soldiers' Orph.ans' Home of Iowa. 

Be it resolved hy the Senate and House of Eepresentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the buildings, sheds, furniture, and other property now at 
Camp Kinsman, near Davenport, Scott County, Iowa, be, and the same are hereby, 
donated to the Soldiers' Orphans' Home of Iowa. 

Approved January 22, 1866. 

By order of tbe Secretary' of War: 

E. D. TOWNSBND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Contiuued. 

[General Orders No. 22.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, March 19, 1867. 
The following resolution of Congress is published for the information 
and government of all concerned : 

[Public resolution- No. 27.] 

JOINT RESOLUTION prohibiting payment by any otficer of the Government to any person not 
known to have been opposed to the rebellion and in favor of its suppression. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That, until otherwise ordered, it shall be unlawful for any officer 
of the United States Government to pay any account, claim, or demand against said 
Government which accrued or existed prior to the thirteenth day of April, A. D. 
eighteen hundred and sixty-one, in favor of any person who promoted, encouraged, or 
in any manner sustained the late rebellion, or in favor of any person who during said 
rebellion was not known to be opposed thereto and distinctly in favor of its suppres- 
sion ; and no pardon heretofore granted, or hereafter to be granted, shall authorize 
the payment of such account, claim, or demand, until this resolution is modified or 
repealed : Provided, That this resolution shall not be construed to prohibit the payment 



35 

of claims founded upon contracts made by any of the Departments where such claims 
were assigned or contracted to be assigned prior to April first, eighteen hundred and 
sixty-one, to creditors of said contractors, loyal citizens of loyal States, in payment of 
debts incurred prior to March first, eighteen hundred and sixty-one. 
Approved March 2, 18(57. 

By order of the Secretary of War: 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 48.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, April 9, 1867. 
The following resolution of Congress is published for the information 
and government of all concerned : 

[Public resolution — No. 22.] 

JOINT RESOLUTION arthorizing the Second Auditor to settle the accounts of oiHcers of the Army 

in certain cases. 

Be it resolved hif the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the Second Auditor be, and is hereby, authorized and in- 
structed to audit and settle the accounts of line-officers of the Army to the extent of 
their pay, for their services as such, due them from the United States, in all cases where 
such Auditor shall be satisfied, by affidavit of such line-officer, or otherwise, of their 
inability to make their monthly report or returns by reason of their having been pris- 
oners in the hands of the enemy, or any accident or casualty of war they have been 
unable to account for i)roperty in their possession. 

Approved March 29, 1807. 



By order of the Secretary of War : 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 53.] 

War Department, Adjutant- General's Office, 

Washington, April 11, 1867, 
The following resolution of Congress is published for the information 
and government of all concerned: 

[Public resolution— No. 25.] 

A RESOLUTION in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, 

and marines, or their heirs. 

Besolved hy the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That all checks and Treasury certificates to be issued in the settle- 
ment of claims for pay, bonnty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, 
sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives now residing, or who may have 
resided, in any State in which slavery existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, 
the claim for which has been or may be prosecuted liy an agent or attorney, shall be 
made payable to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the said 
agent or attorney his lawful fees and expenses, and shall hold the balance subject to 
the order of the claimants on satisfactory identification ; but no money shall be paid 
to any person except the claimant or his or her legal representatives, if deceased ; nor 
shall any power of attorney, transfer, or assignment of the amount of said claims, or 
any part thereof, be recognized or allowed by the Commissioner, or by any officer or 
agent acting under him ; and it shall be the duty of the said Commissioner, the officers 



36 

aiul jijit'iits of tlip rrfedineu's Bureau, to facilitate, as far as possible, the discovery 
ideutificatioii, and payment of the claimants. 

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 
shall be held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds 
hereby intrusted to him. In settling with the attorney or agent of the claimant strict 
compliance with the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of a joint resolution, 
approved June twenty-sixth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled "Joint resolu- 
tion amendatory of a joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers and the 
pensions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs," approved June fifteen, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-six, will in every case be required and enforced : and if any attorney or 
agent shall, in addition to notarial fees and expenses of collecting such claim, demand 
repayment for money loaned or advanced to any claimant, he shall be required to 
make oath to the date and amount of such loan or advance, or payment of the fees and 
expenses shall be withheld ; and when tlie claimant shall have been properly identi- 
tied, and his account is ready for settlement, the balance due shall be paid in current funds, 
and not in checks or drafts. 

Sec. 3. And be it further resolved, That all money held or disbursed under the provis- 
ions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same rules and regulations 
governing other disbursing otiticers of the Army. 

Approved March 29, ld67. 

By order of tbe Secretary of War: 

E. I). TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Coutinued. 

[General Orders No. 23.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, March 19, 18G7. 

The followiiifi- resolution of Congress is published for (he information 
and government of all concerned: 

[Public resolutiox — No. 29.] 
A KESOLUTION to facilitate the settlement of acconnts of disbarsing officers. 

EesoJved by the Senate and Rouse of Ixepresentatives of the United States of Ainerica in 
Conf/ress assembled, That so much of the act entitled "An act to provide for the more 
prompt settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers," approved July seventeen, 
cigliteeu hundred and sixtj'-two, as provides that "such accounts, with the vouchers 
necessary to the correct and prompt settlement thereof, shall be rendered direct to the 
jjroper accounting officers of the Treasury," be, and the same is hereby, repealed ; and 
all such accounts and vouchers shall hereafter be sent to the bureau to which they per- 
tain, and, after examination there, shall be passed to the x^roper accounting officer of 
the Treasury for settlement. 

Approved March 2, 1867. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWI^SEIS^D, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Exhibit L— Continued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, April 8, 1867, 

The attention of officers disbursing moneys pertaining to the fund for 
recruiting the liegular Army, and on account of the contingent fund of 
the Adjutant-General's Department, is directed to General Orders No. 
23, March 19, 1867, from this Office, publishing resolution of Congress 
entitled ''A resolution to facilitate the settlement of accounts of dis- 
bursing officers." 

The accounts, &c., which have heretofore been rendered to the Second 
Auditor of the Treasury, Avill hereafter be forwarded direct to the Ad- 



37 

jutant-General of the Army, and those relating- to the disbursement of 
quartermasters' or subsistence funds, which have been rendered to the 
Third Auditor of the Treasury, will be forwarded direct to the Quarter- 
master-General or Commissary-General of Subsistence, as the ease may 
be. All accounts, returns, &c., which have been forwarded direct to the 
Adjutant-General, Quartermaster-General, or Commissary-(jeneral of 
Subsistence will be continued in the same manner as heretofore. 

The accounts, returns, &c., required of officers disbursing moneys on 
account of the contingent fund of the Adjutant-General's Department, 
are : a duly certified monthly statement of such moneys on hand from 
last returns ; receipts wuthin the month ; balances unexpended and 
where deposited, within ten days after the expiration of each successive 
month ; also accounts, quarterly, with the vouchers necessary to a cor- 
rect settlement thereof, within at least one month after the expiration 
of each successive quarter. 

Accounts and vouchers will be rendei^ed forthwith, whenever officers 
cease to disburse, from change of duty or otherwise. 

Accounts, &c., to be rendered for the period up to April 1, 1867, will 
be rendered as heretofore, and thereafter, in accordance with these 
instructions. 

By order of the Secretary' of AVar : 

E. D. TOW^^SEND, 

Aisistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, May 16, 1867. 

Hereafter, when deposits are made to the credit of the Treasurer of 
the United States by recruiting officers, or mustering and disbursing 
officers, or officers disbursing moneys on account of the contingent fund 
of the Adjutant- General's Department, the original certificates of de- 
posit wdl be sent to the Secretary of the Treasury through the Atljutant- 
Geueral's Office and the War Department. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistan t Adjutant- General. 

(Revoked by General Order I^o. 10 of 1871.) 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Ad.jutant-General's Office, 

Washington, September 10, 1867. 

1. Orders will be sent to recruiting and other disbursing officers 
required to make reports weekly of the amount of public funds in their 
custody, and where such funds are deposited, to make such reports by 
mail and not by telegraph. 

2. The use of the telegraph will be reduced, and letters sent by mail, 
instead of dispatches by telegraph, as much as possible. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWN^SEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



38 
Exhibit L—Contiuued. 

[General Orders No. G5.3 

Headquarters of the Army, 

Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, August 10, 18G8. 
By direction of the Secretary of War, the followinj^ act of Congress 
is published for the information and government of all concerned : and 
a strict compliance with section G of this act is eujoiued upon all dis- 
bursing officers of the War Department : 

AN ACT to facilitate the settlement of the accoiinta of the Treasurer of the United States, and to 
secure certain moneys to the people of the United States, or to persons to whom they are due, and 
who are entitled to receive the same. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and Rouse of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Contjress assembled, That all amounts of moneys that are represented by certificates, 
drafts, or checks, issued by the Treasurer of the United States, or by any disbursing 
officer of any department of the Government of the Uuited^States upon the Treasurer, or 
any assistant treasurer, or designated depositary of the United States, or upon any 
national banii designated as a depository of the United States, and which shall be rep- 
resented on the books of either such offices as standing to the credit of any disbursing 
officer, and bearing date prior to July first, eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and, 
which were issued to facilitate the payment of warrants, or for any other purpose in 
liquidation of a debt due from the United States, which may remain outstanding on 
the first day of July, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, shall be deposited by the Treas- 
urer of the United States, to be covered into the Treasury by warrant, and to be carried 
to the credit of the iiarties in whose favor such certificates, drafts, or checks were re- 
spectively issued, or to the persons who are entitled to receive pay therefor, and into 
an appropriation account to be denominated " outstanding liabilities." 

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the certificate of the Register of the Treasury, 
stating that the amount of any draft issued by the Treasurer of the United States to 
facilitate the payment of a warrant directed to him for payment, and which may have 
so remained outstanding and uupaid for three years or more, as aforesaid, and which 
shall have been thus deposited and covered into the Treasury, shall be, and the same 
is hereby authorized to be, when attached to any such warrant, a sufficient voucher in 
satisfaction of anj^ such warrant or part of any warrant, the same as if the drafts, cor- 
rectly indorsed and fully satisfied, were attached to such warrant or part of warrant. 
And all such moneys mentioned in this and in the preceding section shall remain as a 
permanent appropriation for the redemption and payment of all such outstanding and 
unpaid certificates, drafts, and checks as aforesaid. 

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That the i»ayee or the bona-fide holder of any such draft 
or check, the amount of which has been so deposited and covered into the Treasury, 
shall, on presenting the same to the proper officer of the Treasury, be entitled to have 
it paid by the settlement of an account, and the issuing of a warrant in his favor, ac- 
cording to the practice in other cases of authorized and li(i[uidated claims against the 
United States. 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That at the termination of every fiscal year after 
this act shall begin to operate, the provisions thereof shall apply to all similar certifi- 
cates, drafts, and checks, which shall then have for three years or more remained out- 
standing, unsatisfied, and unpaid, and to all disbursing officers accounts that shall have 
so remained unchanged as in the next section provided for. 

Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That the amounts, except such as are provided for 
in the first section of this act, of the accounts of every kind of disbursing officer ot the 
Government of the United States, which shall have remained unchanged, or which 
shall not have been increased by any new deposit thereto, nor decreased by drafts 
drawn thereon, for the space of three years, shall in like manner be covered into the 
Treasury, to the proper appropriation to which they may belong, and the amounts 
thereof shall, on tlie certificate of the Treasurer of the United States that such amount 
has been deposited in the Treasury, be credited by the proper accounting officer of the 
Treasury on the books of the Treasury Department to the officer in whose name it had 
stood on the books of any agency of the Treasury, if it shall be made to appear that he 
is entitled to such credit. 

Sec. 6. And be it further enacted, That for the purpose of giving force apd effect to 
the full intent and meaning of this act, it shall be the dnty of the Treasurer, and of all 
assistant-treasurers, and of all designated depositories of the United States, and of the 
cashiers of all national banks designated as such depositories, to report to the Secretary of 
the Treasury at the close of business on the thirtieth day of June next, and in like nnin- 
uer at the close of business on every thirtieth day of June thereafter, the condition of 



39 

every such account so standing, as in the preceding section specified, on the books of 
their respective offices, stating the name of each depositor, respectively, with his offi- 
cial designation, the total amount so remaining on deposit to his credit, and the dates, 
respectively, of the last credit and the last debit made to each of such accounts, respect- 
ively. And it shall be the duty of every and each disbursing officer in any and every 
department of the Government of the United States to make a like return of all checks 
issued by such officer, and which may then have been outstanding and unpaid for 
three years and more, stating fully in such report the name of the payee, for what pur- 
pose given, the office on which drawn, theuumberof the voucher received therefor, and 
the date, number, and amount for which it was drawn, and, when known, the residence 
of the payee. 
Approved May 2, 1866. 



By command of General Grant; 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 7.] 

Headquarters of the Army, 

Adjutant-General's Offoe, 

Washington^ January 22, 1870. 
By dire jtion of tlie Secretary of War, all official papers of the na- 
ture of vouchers, or forming a basis or authority for the expenditure of 
money, whicli should be originally signed or officially authenticated by 
any officer of the Army, will hereafter be signed or authenticated, as 
the case may be, with the pen, and the affixing of stamped, i^rinted, or 
lithographed/flf-S'imif/e signatures will be discontinued. The facsimile 
signatures which may have been heretofore affixed to vouchers, &c., 
will be recognized as authorized signatures. 
By command of General Sherman : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 81.] 

Headquarters of the Army, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, July 3, 1870. 
The following acts and resolution of Congress are published for the 
information and government of all concerned : 

I. — [Private — No. 47.] 
AN ACT for the relief of Captain John A. Wilcox. 

Be it enacted bif tlie Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress ossenMed, That the proper accounting officers, in settling and adjusting 
the accounts of John A. Wilcox, captain Fourth Regiment of United States Cavalry, 
are hereby directed to credit said Wilcox with the snm of seven hundred and sixty- 
four dollars and ten cents, being the amount of Government funds which were stolen 
from him, without his default, at or near Fort Clark, Texas, on the fourteenth of Feb- 
ruary, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-seven. 

Approved June 21, 1870. 

II.— [Public— No. 100.] 
AN ACT to authorize the settlement of the accounts of officers of the Army and Navy. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Eepresentafives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That the i^roper accounting officers of the Treasury be, and they 
are hereby, authorized, in the settlement of the accounts of disbursing officers of the 
War and Navy Departments, arising since the commencement of the rebellion, and 



40 

prior to the twentieth daj' of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, to allow such 
credits for overpayments, and for losses of funds, vouchers, and property, as they may 
deem just and reasonable, when recommended under authority of the Secretaries of 
War and Navy, by the heads of the military and naval bureaus to which such ac- 
counts respectively pertain. 

Sec. 2. Aud be it further enacted, That the accounts of military and naval officers, 
"whether of the line or statt', for Government propei'ly charged to then), may be closed 
by the proper accounting officers whenever, in their judgment, it will be for the inter- 
est of the United States so to do : Provided, That such accounts originated prior to the 
twentieth day of August, eighteen hundred and sixty-six : Provided, That no settle- 
ment shall be made by the officers of the Treasury under this act which shall exceed 
the sum of live thousand dollars, and only of such officers of the Army and Navy and 
of the Pay Department in whose accounts there is no apparent fraud against the 
United States : And provided further, That this act shall remain in force for two years 
from and after its passage and no longer. 

Approved June 23, 1870. 

III. — [Public resolution— No. 53.] 

JOINT EESOLTTTION aiitliorizing the Secretary of War to place at the disposal of the judges of the 
county court of Greene County, State of Missouri, certain captured ordnance. 

Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled. That the Secretary of War be, and he is hereby, authorized and 
directed to i)lace at the disposal of the judges of the county court of the county of 
Greene, in the State of Missouri, eight captui-ed twelve-pounder guns of obsolete pat- 
tern, now condemned and in store at the Rock Island arsenal, to be placed in Franklin 
Square, North Springfield, Missouri, around a monument to be erected to the memory 
of the late Brigadier-General Nathaniel Lyon, and the Federal soldiers who fell with 
him at the battle of Wilson Creek. 

Approved June 23, 1870. 

By command of General Sherman : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. 109.J 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, August 12, 1870. 
Paragraph 996, Eevised Regulations for the Army, of 1863, is as fol- 
lows: 

"If any disbursing officer shall bet at cards, or any game of hazard, his commanding 
officer shall suspend his functions, and require him to turn over ail the public funds in 
his keeping, and shall immediately report the case to the proper bureau of the War De- 
partment." 

In every case where an ofiScer intrusted with the care or disbursement 
of public funds shall violate this Kegulation, he will be brought to trial 
before a general court-martial by the department commander, and will 
not be assigned to duty, or again put in possession of public funds sub- 
sequent to his trial, without the approval of the Secretary ot War. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Adjutant- G en eral. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, October 10, 1870. 
Hereafter officers disbursing moneys on account of the contingent 
fund of the Adjutant-General's Department will discontinue the monthly 
summary statements and quarterly accounts-current required by cicular 
dated April 8, 1867, from this office, and, instead, render only a monthly 
account-current, with abstract and vouchers necessary to a correct set- 



41 

tlement thereof, witbin at least ten days from the expiration of each 
successive month. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- Gen era I. 



ExHiEiT L — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

Wae Depaktment, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, December 15, 1870. 
The following- opinion of the Second Comptroller of the Treasury is 

published for the information of tbose concerned : 

* * • * * * * * 

" In all cases where allowances have been made to officers under the laws and regula- 
tions existing prior to the 15th of July, 1H7U, iu justitiable ignorance of the law of that 
date, the payment of the allowance should be admitted to the credit of the disbnrsjug 
officer." 

* * * * * # * 

Bv order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWXSEXD, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders Xo. 65.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, October 30, 1871. 
Certificates of deposit. 

Officers or agents of this Department who hereafter transfer public 
funds, by depositing the same to the credit of the Treasurer of the 
United States, will, in each case, require and receive certificates of de- 
posit in duplicate only. 

The face of each certificate will be made to show, in writing, to what 
appropriation the deposit belongs and for what fiscal year the money 
was appropriated, provided the depositor possesses sucli information as 
may be necessary to enable the depositary to state the same in prepar- 
ing the certificate for issue. 

The original certificate, with a letter of transmittal showing for what 
reason or on what account the deposit has been made, will at once be 
forwarded to the chief of the Bureau controlliag the appropriation to 
which the money belongs, or, in the absence of information concerning 
the latter, to the Bureau officer in this city under whose orders the 
depositor received the funds. The duplicate certificate will be retained 
by the depositor for his security. 

The place, date, and amount of deposit, and the number of the certifi- 
cate, together with the appropriation, if specified, will be noted on the 
account-current or other proper return upon which the depositor desires 
to be credited for the money. 

Original certificates of deposit, when received and recorded at the 
Bureau offices, will, without unnecessary delay, be transmitted through 
the Secretary of War to the Secretary of the Treasury, care being taken 
that the appropriation and the fiscal year are clearly and proi^erly speci- 
fied in every case. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General, 

Revoked by General Orders Xo. 10 of 1874. 



42 

Exhibit L — Coiitiaued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, November 23, 1871. 

Officers responsible for moueys i)ertainiug to the fund for recruiting 
the Regular Army and the contingent fund of the Adjutant-General's 
Department, will hereafter issue no checks against their official de- 
posits, except in pursuance of law and Treasury regulations, as fol- 
lows : 

1. For payment of authorized vouchers. 

2. For transfer of credits from one to another disbursing officer in the 
same depository. 

3. In exchange for money when the deposit is at a distant point and 
the money needed for present public disbursement. 

In all cases a brief statement on the face or back of the checks should 
show the purpose for which they were issued. 
By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Was]iingto7i, December 19, 1871. 

The following circular, issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, is 
published for the information and guidance of those concerned : 

Whenever a United States disbursing officer, serving in two distinct capacities, and 
having moneys advanced to him from two distinct Bureaus, deposits his funds with 
the Treasurer of the United States, an Assistant Treasurer, or United States deposi- 
tary, separate accounts should be kept of such moneys, and the balance to the credit 
of each should be reported separately on the weekly lists of disbursing officers' bal- 
ances. 

These instructions are intended to apply more particularly to officers of the 
Quartermaster's branch of the War Department serving as commissaries, and vice 
vei-sa. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWKSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L — Continued. 

[General Orders No. G.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, February 12, 1872. 
The following act of Congress is published for tlie information and 
government of all concerned : 

an act to authorize the payment of duplicate checks of disbursing officers. 

Be it enacted hy the Senate and Hoim of Representatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That in place of original checks, when lost, stolen, or destroyed, 
disbursing officers and agents of the United States are hereby authorized, after the ex- 
piration of six months from the date of such checks, and within three years from such 
date, to issue duplicate checks, and the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurers, and desig- 
nated depositaries of the United States are directed to pay such checks, drawn in pur- 
suance of law by such officers or agents, upon notice and proof of the loss of the 



43 

original chock or checks, under such regulations in regard to their issue and payment, 
and upon the execution of such bonds, with sureties, to indemnify the United States, 
as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe : Pmvided, That this act shall not ap- 
ply to any check exceeding in. amount the sum of one thousand dollars. 

Sec. 2. That in case the disbursing officer or agent by whom such lost, destroyed, or 
stolen original check was issued, be dead, or no longer in the service of the United 
States, it shall be the duty of the proper accounting officer, under such regulations as 
the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, to state an account in favor of the owner 
of such original check for the amount thereof, and to charge such amount to the ac- 
count of such officer or agent. 

Appro \^ed February 2, 1872. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit M. 

War Department, Ad.tutant-General's Office, 

Washington, JD. C, January 2, 1873. 

General O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 

and Abandoned Lands, Washington, D. C. : 
General: Referring to communication of Jnly 1, 1872, of Major J. 
M. Brown, late disbursing officer, copy herewith, transmitting certain 
unsettled accounts for transportation furnished on certain orders of the 
late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, from 18GG 
to 1868, and reporting that there are no funds to pay the same, I have 
respectfully to invite your attention to the fact that no schedule, or certi- 
ficate, showing the outstanding debts of the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, accompanied the same, as required by par- 
agraph 1009, Revised Regulations United States Army. 

I am, general, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

A djutant- General. 



Exhibit IS^. 

[Circular No. 76. .1 

Paymaster-General's Office, 

Washington, I). C, April 5, 1871. 
The following regulations are made necessary by recent enactments of 
Congress, and are published for the guidance of officers of the Pay 
De[)artment. Tbey uiust be carefully and rigidly observed in every par- 
ticular. (See Acts February 12, 1808, sec. 2 ; July 12, 1870, sees. 5 
and 7.) 

1. Chief paymasters in submitting their estimates will state the amount 
required under each appropriation. 

2. Paymasters must show on their accounts-current the amounts re- 
ceived and disbursed, and the balance on hand under each appropria- 
tion. A copy of the account-current will be transmitted to the chief 
paymaster for his information. 

3. Chief paymasters will see that their paymasters are supplied from 
time to time with the proper proportion of the several classes of funds, 
as designated in the appropriations, to make the payments assigned to 
them. 



44 

4. The receipts for transfer of funds (Form Xo. 2) must state tbe 
amount transferred under each of the appropriations, and the fiscal .year 
to which the appropriations belonged, thus : " Pay of the Army, 1870- 
1871 ;" that is, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871. 

5. An amount appropriated for one imrpose ninst not he used for any 
other jmrpose than that for ivhich it was appropriated. 

6. Disbursements of the appropriations of each fiscal year being 
required to be kept distinct, separate abstracts and accounts-current 
must be rendered accordingly. 

7. The abstract of disbursements must be made out under the follow- 
ing heads: 

Fay of Army : (Monthly pay to officers on account of salary, including 
the increase for length of service : pay of enlisted men ; pay of contract 
surgeons ; pay of messengers to paymasters ; extra-duty pay to hospital 
cooks and nurses ; travel pay and commutation of subsistence to dis- 
charged men ; retained pay ; allowance for forage and quarters paid the 
General and Lieuteuant-Ueneral ; and payments to soldiers in lieu of 
clothing not drawn.) 

Mileage : (Mileage paid to officers of the Army traveling under orders.) 

General expenses : (Postage on letters and packages received and sent 
by officers of the Army on public service ] cost of telegrams ; compen- 
sation of citizen witnesses attending upon courts-martial, military com- 
missions, or courts of inquiry ; traveling expenses of paymasters' clerks.) 

Pay of Military Academy : (All x^ayments to the professors, including 
the increase for length of service, assistant professors, instructors, 
teachers, cadets, and musicians at the Military Academy.) 

8. Paymasters will in all cases take receipts for the full amount of the 
officer's pay, and carry the amount receipted for to the abstract of 
disbursements. 

All stoppages against or deductions from the pay of officers, and all 
receipts of wliatever nature except transfers of funds, must be taken up 
by the paymaster on his abstract of receipts, (Form No. 8,) showing date 
of receipt, from whom received, on what account, and amount received, 
and carried from thence in gross to his account-current as " miscella- 
neous receipts." 

The collection of a stoppage against an officer will also be noted on 
the officer's voucher. 

9. Paymasters will deposit with a designated depositary of the United 
States the amount of their miscellaneous receipts, as shown by their 
abstract of receipts, obtaining therefor duplicate receipts ; the original 
to be forwarded with the account-current, the duplicate to be retained. 

10. "When an officer is paid advance mileage the paymaster will take 
the officer's receipt on Form No. 11, charge the amount advanced on his 
abstract of disbursements to " mileage," and indorse the payment on the 
officer's order. 

In making up an officer's account for the balance of mileage due him 
the jiaymaster will make up the account for the whole distance traveled, 
deduct the amount advanced, as shown by the indorsement on the 
officer's order, and charge the balance paid, as above, to " mileage." 

11. When enlisted men are mustered and paid for a j)eriod embracing 
a portion of two fiscal years, the amount due for service during each 
fiscal year will be carried to its ju'oper abstract for that year. 

12. Payments to discharged soldiers should be charged as follows : 
pay proper and clothing to fiscal year in which they accrued ; commu- 
tation of subsistence, travel pay, and retained pay to the fiscal year 
in which the man is discharged. 



45 

13. After the ]){iymeDts on tlie muster of August 31, 1871, are made, 
at which time it is presumed all dues of tbe previous fiscal year will 
have beeu made, paymasters will transfer to tbeir respective chief 
paymasters their balance of apjiropriations for the last fiscal year. 
Chief paymasters will in return supply them with funds from the ap- 
l)ropriations for the then current fiscal year. This transfer may be 
made by an interchange of receipts. Chief paymasters will then assume 
the payment of all vouchers for services rendered prior to June 30, 1871. 
Other paymasters may make for convenience such payments for the 
chief paymaster, to whom in such case will be forwarded the vouchers 
for such payments, receiving in exchange either draft or receipt for their 
amount. 

14. All balances on hand June 30, 1871, except " Military Academy" 
and " Mo. Home (xuard" funds, will be designated as " paj- of the Army 
prior to July 1, 1871." 

15. Errors in addition, or in amounts, short or over carried, will be 
credited or charged to tbe appropriations in which the errors were 
made. 

IG. The suspensions, as stated in the letter of the Paymaster-General 
to the Second Auditor turning over tbe paymaster's accounts, (a copy 
of which letter is furnished to the paymaster,) must be taken up and 
charged on the account-current under tbe heads of tbe appropriations 
in which the errors were made. 

" Suspensions removed" upon explanations, to this office, will only be 
entered by the paymaster, after notice from this office of their removal. 
A copy of the letter removing the suspension must be filed with the 
account-current. 

17. Tbe " monthly statement" required by existing regulations will 
be discontinued after June 30, 1871. 

18. Tbe weekly statement must show the total amount of funds for 
which the paymaster is accountable, stating what portion thereof is on 
deposit, and where, at the date of report. 

19. Paymasters will render their accounts, with vouchers, abstracts, 
&c., at the end of each month unless for unavoidable reason it may be 
impracticable. But a longer term than two months must not, under 
any circumstances, be permitted to pass without such rendering of 
accounts. 

20. Paymasters are required by act of June 14, 1SG6, to deposit all 
public money intrusted to them for disbursement in some designated 
depository of the United States, and to make payments by checks. This 
requirement must be strictly observed, keeping money in hand only 
when the necessities of tbe service make it indispensable, as in the 
instance of payments to troops in tbe field or in garrison. 

21. After the 30th of June next all Treasury certificates payable by 
this Department will be paid at this office only. 

22. Chief paymasters will see that the requirements of this circular are 
strictly carried out. 

23. The foregoing regulations go into effect at the beginning of the 
next fiscal year, (July 1, 1871.) Payments for service rendered prior to 
that date will be made and accounted for as heretofore. 

The appended examples of "account-current" and "abstract of re- 
ceipts" (supposed cases) are given the more clearly to explain what is 
required by these regulations. 



46 



s 



e <i 



VS, -3 



^" 



a ^^i 



s w 



% 





ri 
















c xt; 


1 ■* II 








o 




— I' -S" (N 1 ''5 II 






a 




to QO in 10 








■9~"^n i - 








( 






mown 1 05 !! 












1 














00 I~ 


1 in 












^ 


1 - 








m 




^ • • 




II 






M 
















'© 




Si 












r= 




> SS 










• -2 


a 




« £ a 










CS 


a o 






en 






s 


o n 




© 

.a 









1 ^ 












o g S 




-2 a es~.a' 










-■§:2 

="! a 3 




h- 








<^ o ^ 




■« £"S 5 


* 








lo ^ 2 














S M 




•^SOM 








in o o o o o c 


,r 


00 w c 


c 


^ 


■^ 


•*^ 


-H O O O 1- t- C 


(J. 


to = ■» t- 


c 


r- 


»c 


p 


o o o o to to c 


»• 


r: (M tc 


(O 


c 







J- o o c r: ir: »- 


i" 


1 CO to ■-- 








o 


o I.': r: 00 CI T 




-< CO 00 (N ^ 






03 


a 


f-" cfiOf-T 


(, 


Tt^O ^^ 




„ 


u-T 


<i 


«& 


■fl 


CJ 




c 


'^ 

















c 










c 




r- 






ce <B . 












i- 


t- 










t- 




F 






•— ' ^ en 














































to 


tc 










to 




i tc 






Is.!- 












10 


IT 














If 


















TJ 










■^ 




■^ 






.2 o « 












S& 






















3S" 


































M 


oc 


o o o o 


c 


a 


a 




_, 




1 „ 


tr 




c- 


o o o o 


c 


a 


c» 




m 




•? 





rh 


c =■ =; o 




u- 


CO 




to 




1 =■ 


!S 




O O O T-H 




tl 











^" 


00 


fe a 


»- 


IC M 00 




t- 










t- 


(TJ 










c 


" 












O 
























<H 


o 


o o 




01 


00 





c 


c 


UJ 


© 




o 


oo 




"■ 







<= 


•" 


^J* 


S= 


■^ 


o 


o to 




^ 





'•7 


^ 


-t 


S 


^ 


tc 










— C3 






t^ 


00 


s 




o 


o" 




ff 


CJ r5 






^ 


CO 


1 


oc 


cf 


^" 




^ 


(rfo" 






t~ 


■^'" 


* 








'" 














^ 


o o 








I, 










c 


'2 


tM ,. 


cc 


oo 


•<9' 


c 


<= 


CO 


0<M 




ir 


in 


o P^ 


c 


o o 





c 


c 





5» 




5J 


t- 


^1 


ir 


o o 






cr 


to 









■2 




oo 


rH 




to 




00 r- 




^ 


in 


Pk<«! 


5 


o'lO" 






c 


53 


^ 




(N 


00" 




























^ 
























f- 




































IX 
















































s 




































_2 




























































£ 


1 










'^ 
























■< 












^ 


^ 






















.c 












J 


oc 
































•J 


'^ 


































c 


.^ 














;. 


^ '^ 


a 












p 


















Sc; 
































4S 30 


c 






ti b' 


'C 


s 


) 








a 










111 


c 


< 

a 










a 
c 








-^ ce ce- 2: 


■1 
r 




t2 






i2 Wra^g-^ a 

■S £ 2 a=:l 

t- (-( c-i a: Ji 1-2 

a-ii:£ g a ? 






a 
rf a 

li 

a =« 

Oo 




a 

c 



C3 
« 




c 


tf 

■I 


l^a^* 


3.2 


'^ 











Ht£=£ a = 


WE 

_ C! 


2 


© 


a 




a 






a CO tK i r 


q -fcj 








? § a ei. o ^ 


C 


c a a &S 


^ 


c 


3 




"c 


Hi3^ 5 Sc 


i- 


illi§ 


1"^ 


^ 


M 




c 


o o o o o c 




>> >-. >-. >: > 








^ 


HHHHHe- 




nmnpqpq 


pq 










o t^ to in ^ th 




^ t- to — — 1 








© 


t- -»^ 


T^oimr 




CO rt CO CO 








Is 
P 


*i*i . . . 




^ 








sg 

a 


^ CL m O O O i. 




ETo P u 








a 


V 


c 


c 


c 






C 


V. 


c 


'" 














47 



ABSTRACT OF RECEIPTS. 

Amounts received iy Maj. H M , paymaster United States Army, for the months of 

September and October, 1871. 



Date. 



From whom received. 



On what account. 



Amount. 



1871. 
Sept. 2 

Sept. 2 

Sept. 3 

Sept. 5 

Sept.15 

Sept.27 
Oct. 9 

Oct. 10 
Oct. 17 

Oct. 28 
Oct. 31 



Capt. H. Naylor, Sixteenth Infantry 
do 

Lieut. "William Harris, Third Cavalry 
Lieut. G. E. Gary, Fifth Infantry... 

Capt. J. T. Ferris, Third Artillery. 

Capt. W. Farley, Sixth Infontry. . . . 
Maj. H. Gross, Sixth Infantry 



Maj. J. C. Grovor, Fifteenth Infantry 
Col. B. Y. Miller, Third Cavalry . . . . 

Lieut. J. Porter, Ninth Cavalry 

Maj. Henry Martin, paymaster 



Effects of private James Smith, Company 

B, Sixteenth Infantry. 
Ett'ects of Private Thomas Jones, Company 

B, Sixteenth Infantry. 
Overpayment on June account hy Maj. H. 

Show, paymaster U. S. A. 
Expen8e.s of enlistment of Private G. "VV. 

Barker, Company A, Fourth Cavalry, per 

S. O. 233, 1870. 
Tobacco not charged on rolls of Company B, 

Third Artillery, muster of April 30, 1870. 

Refunds on account of ordnance 

Amount refunded by William Gates, private 

Company B, Sixth Infantry, discharged 

G. O. No. 10. 
Refunds overpayment made by Maj. William 

Walker, paymaster, for May, 1870. 
Refunds amount due United States, per 

notice from Second Auditor dated July 3, 

1871. 
Stoppages ordered by letter from Paymaster- 
General's Othce, dated July 13, 1870. 
Overpavment to Private E. V.Jay, voucher 

34, account for June, 1871. 

Total 



143 35 
26 65 
32 37 
38 56 

1 56 

29 4.1 
19 67 

35 37 
134 27 

85 18 
10 29 



I certify that the above statement is accurate and correct. 
Paymasters will acknowledge the receipt of this circular. 

Official : 



M , Pai/master, J7. S. A. 

B. W. BRICE, 
Paymaster-General, U. S. A. 



Paymaster, U. S. A. 



Exhibit N — Continued. 

[Circular No. SO.] 

Paymaster-General's Office, 

Washington, November 10, 1871. 
Paymasters will hereafter issue no cheeks against their ofiQcial de- 
liosits except in pursuance of law and Treasury regulations, as follows : 

1. For payment of authorized vouchers. 

2. For transfer of credits from one to another paymaster, in the same 
depository. 

3. To draw money for the payment of troops. 

4. In exchange for money when the deposit is at a distant point, and 
the money needed for present public disbursement. 

In all cases a brief statement on the foce or back of the checks 
should show the purpose for which they were issued. 

The foregoing has the concurrence and authority of the Secretary of 
the Treasury and must be strictly observed. 

B. W. PRICE, 
Paymaster-General, U. S. A. 



• 48 

Exhibit N — Continued. 

Paymaster-General's Office, 

Washington, Jannary 20, 1872. 
Tlie followinf? circular to chief faymasters are re-published for 
tlie information and guidance of officers of the Pay Department : 

Washington, October 14, 1871. 
It has become iieceesary that estimates shall hereafter be made with an approximate 
accuracy — close as the circumstauces will admit. To this end, and to support their 
general correctness, it is required that all estimates under the appropriations for the 
"pay of the Army" shall be accompanied with a statement of tlie troops to be paid, 
designating the regiments, field and staff, and number of companies of each, (estimated 
as full companies, with their complement of officers,) the number of generals and gen- 
eral staff-officers, and the non-commissioned staff" and other men not of regiments. 
These may be estimated for in gross, without giving names of officers, as follows : 

1. For generals and general staff-officers, (include in these contract-surgeons). .. $ 

2. For regiments — cavalry, field and staff and companies 

For regiments — artillery, field and staff and companies 

For regiments — infantry, field and staff" and companies 

Total 



Estimates on the above basis, it is believed, will give abundant margin for transient 
payments to officers and discharged soldiers. 

Chief j)ayraa8ters, in distribution to paymasters, must look closely to the object and 
purpose of this circular, and furnish no more money to any officer than shall be reason- 
ably ample for the payments assigaed to him. 

From each estimate must be deducted the probable balance under each appropriation 
remaining unexpeaded and available for the period embraced in the estimat-^. 

B. W. BRICE, 
Paymaster- General, U. S. A. 



Washington, Novemlcr 8, 1871. 

Particular attention is called to the new forms (No. 9 "A" and No. 9 " B ") of weekly 
statements forwarded to paymasters this day. 

They are designed to replace at once the Form No. 9, now in use. 

Form No. 9 "A" is intended for the copy required to be sent to the Treasurer of the 
United States. 

Form No. 9 "B " will be used only for the copy intended for this office. Its special 
purposes are cleai'ly indicated by the several printed indorsements thereon. It should 
be forwarded to this office with the least practicable delay after its receipt by chief 
j)aymaster8. 

The destination of each of these forms and the manner of transmitting same is pre- 
scribed in Note 1 thei'eon ; the address is, furthermore, printed upon the lower left- 
hand corner of each blank. 

As, under existing regulations, chief paymasters have the immediate control of 
their subordinates — the direction of their duties and management of their money-sup- 
plies — and are expected to exercise careful vigilance and scrutiny in regard to the 
public funds, their approbatory indorsement of the statement No. 9 " B " will be con- 
sidered to comprehend that the balances therein stated are, to the best of their knowl- 
edge and belief, correct, and not in excess of the a]3proximate needs of the officer's 
station. 

Chief paymasters will instruct their subordinates in the use of these forms, as herein 
prescribed. 

B. W. BRICE, 
Paymaster-General, U. S. A. 

BENJ. ALVORD, 
Acting Paymaster-General, TJ. 8. A. 



Exhibit N— Continued. 

[Circular No. 82.] 

Paymaster-General's Office, 

Washingtonj January 25, 1872. 
I. Whenever an officer of this Department is directed to close his ac- 
counts and turn over the balance of public funds in his hands, (which 



49 

should be done whenever he renews his bond, or is ordered to change 
his station, or goes on leave of absence of more than ten days,) it must 
in all cases be effected by an actual hona-fide transfer of funds, whether 
by cash or by transfer-check upon the proper depository. In the latter 
case, the clieck must be immediately transmitted by the payee for trans- 
fer to his credit. Any departure from a literal compliance with this 
regulation is strictly forbidden. 

II. Chief paymasters are, ex-officio, inspectors within their depart 
meuts, and should make inspections as frequently as may be necessary, 
in order " to exercise the careful vigilance and scrutiny in regard to the 
public funds," enjoined by former circulars from this office, and to ena- 
ble them to make understandingly the monthly reports required in par- 
agraph 54 of the Paymaster's Manual. But inspections requiring travel 
will only be made under the orders and in the discretion of the depart- 
ment commander. 

One of the United States depositaries having declined to give a chief 
paymaster a statement of the balance then to the credit of x^aymaster, 
the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury writes to this office under date of 
15th January, 1872, as follows: 

"The president of said National Bank had advised me of its action, and requested 
instructions iu the premises, which were given by directing him to furnish the de- 
sired information. As this is the tirst case of the kind tliat has been brought to my 
attention, and I am under the impression tliat but few depositaries would refuse to 
furnish such information upon proper applications, I do not deem it necessary to issue 
any general instructions at present, but will do so should similar occurrences demand 
it." 

III. Paymasters are reminded that by P. M. G. Circular No. SO, and 
also by the Treasury Circular of 2d January, 1872, published in General 
Orders No. 1, C. S., from A. G. Office, all checks must be indorseu as 
required in said circulars. 

IV. The requirements contained in circulars to chief paymasters, dated 
November 13, 18G7, and October 20, 1808, will be strictly observed. 
Estimates should be prepared and promptly mailed to reach this office not 
later than the 20th of each alternate month, about forty days preceding 
the muster for which funds are required, that is, by 20th January, 20th 
March, 20th May, and so on. This regulation will not be understood as 
forbidding chief paymasters, at very remote stations, making estimates 
still earlier than the dates above in<licated. 

V. Paymasters will forward, through the Paymaster- General, on every 
30th day of June, the report to the Secretary of the Trieasury, of out- 
standing checks remaining unpaid for three years and more, as required 
by act of 2d May, 1866. (See paragraph 4:^, Paymasters' Manual.) 

VI. Paymasters, before commencing the payment of troops, should 
always have the authority of the commanding officer of the post or 
regiment. 

BENJ. ALVOED, 
Acting Paymaster- General, U. S. A, 
Official : 

J. H. EATON, 

Paymaster U. S. A. 

4 H E 



50 
Exhibit N — Coutinued. 

[Circular No. 8(5.] 

Paymaster-General's Office, 

Washington, May 18, 1872. 

I. Each paymaster is furnislied with a preliminary statement of sus- 
pensions made in his accounts after examination in this oflice. Upon 
receipt of his reply the account is re-examined, if necessary, and the pre- 
liminary statement revised. The suspensions remaining after such re- 
vision are charged against the paymaster upon the books of this otfice, 
and are embodied in the letter of transmittal sent with the account to 
the Second Auditor. A copy of this letter to the Second Auditor is fur- 
nished to the paymaster. It, alone, indicates the suspensions with which 
the i)aymaster should charge himself upon his next account-current, as 
required by paragraph IG, Circular IS'o. 76, Paymaster-General's Office. 
Paymasters should not charge themselves with suspensions from the 
preliminary statement. 

IT. Amounts collected or refunded by a paymaster on account of sus- 
pensions will, like collections and refundments on other accounts, be 
deposited to credit of the United States Treasurer, and taken upon the ab- 
stract of miscellaneous receipts, noting the number of voucher and date 
of account in which suspended. In case a collection be on account of an 
overpayment made by another paymaster, and the number of voucher 
and date of account in which the error occurred cannot be stated, then 
note should be made upon the abstract of receipts of the name of the 
paymaster concerned and the period covered by the voucher in which 
the overpayment was made. 

III. Upon notation in this office of items of suspensions taken up as 
provided in the preceding paragraph, or upon receipt of other evidence 
tending to the removal of suspensions, the proper paymaster will be 
authorized by letter from this oflice lo take credit upon his next account- 
current, as provided in paragraph 16, Circular No, 76, Paymaster-Gen- 
eral's Oflice. Information of the fact and cause of removal will at the 
same time be forwarded to the Second Auditor for file with the i>roper 
account. 

IV. A certificate of a company commander that a stoppage will be 
made on future pay-rolls against a soldier is not sufficient authority to 
remove a suspension. When the stoppage is actually made and de- 
ducted, the credit can be given. 

V. There has been too much delay heretofore on the part of many 
paymasters in replying to the preliminary statements of suspensions. 
Officers are reminded that such delay involves detention of their ac- 
counts in this office, and prevents prompt settlement of same by the 
Treasury. 

VI. Paymasters should at once notify officers of suspensions in which 
they are concerned, that they may furnish the additional evidence re- 
quired for removal, or, in default thereof, may reimburse the United 
States without delay. Officers should be notified also of short payments, 
that they may charge the same on their next pay accounts. 

In case of over or short x)ayments to enlisted men, the company com- 
mander should be advised of the amount, name of paymaster by whom 
made, month to which the error belongs, and other facts necessary to 
secure the proper charge or credit ujton a future pay-roll. 

VII. The form of the account-current will be changed, so that appro- 
priations for the different fiscal years may be entered on the same 
account-current. The abstract of payments will be changed in like 
manner. Until supplied with the new forms, paymasters are at liberty 



51 

to make the necessary changes in the headings of blanks now in use. 
In the account-current the words " chargeable to appropriation for the 
fiscal year ending June 30, 187-," may be erased and replaced by the 

words " made during the month of , 187-." The appropriations, 

or such of them as are in use by the paymaster, may be indicated at the 
heads of columns as follows : 

PayofA.rmy. Mileage. General expenses. Pay of Army. Pay of Army. Milease, General expenses 

1972. 1872. 1872. 1870-71. 1873. 1873. 1873. 

such being the official designation (by the Secretary of the Treasury) of 
the appropriations for the fiscal years ending respectively June30, 1872, 
June 30, 1871, and June 30, 1873. Corresponding changes in the heading 
of the abstract of payments will suggest themselves. 

VIII. In the statement of balances and places of deposit required to 
be made in the column of " remarks " upon the account-current, the 
amount of suspended vouchers will be separated from the actual money 
balance. Applying this change to the example given in the column of 
" remarks " on page 3 of circular 7C, it should read thus : 

Balance as follows : 

Assistant treasurer, New York $S, 346 10 

First National Bank of Omaha 7, 018 78 

Cash in hand to pay troops 215 46 

Total of funds 15,580 34 

Add suspensions remaining 330 20 

Balance as stated 15, 910 54 

IX. When a paymaster is ordered to turn over his funds and close 
his accounts he need turn over his actual money balance only. On re- 
suming duty he will again take up the amount of the suspensions. 
When ordereil to rebond he will turn over his actual money balance, 
but on resuming duty he will not take up on his new account-current 
the amount of his suspensions under his old bond, against which they 
will remain charged until removed. 

X. With his first account -current after he rebonds the paymaster 
will render a separate account-cnrrent of the suspensions under the old 
bond. But sul)sequently he will only render an account-current of 
those suspensions when there is a change in them either by increase or 
decrease. 

XI. In paying enlisted men, stoppages must be deducted from the 
amount due them under the appropriation for the fiscal year against 
which the stoppage is chargeable, and the voucher be abstracted ac- 
cordingly. In case, for instance, of a forfeiture of seven mouths' pay 
covering three months in one and four mouths in the next fiscal j'^ear, 
three months' stoppage would be from the old appropriation and four 
months from the new. In case the amount of stoppages should exceed 
the amount aue from the appropriation to which they are chargeable, 
the excess may be deducted from any other amount due. 

XII. So much of paragraph 13, of circular 70, as requires paymas- 
ters, after the 3'lst of August, to turn over to the chief paymaster the 
entire balance of the appropriation of the previous fiscal years, is here- 
by rescinded. The greater portion should be turned over, but the other 
paymasters may retain sufficient of the old appropriation to meet such 
claims as are likely to arise against it. 

XIII. Paymasters should not render separate abstracts of miscella- 
neous receipts for each fiscal year. One abstract suffices for all miscel- 
laneous receipts to whatever appropriation belonging. The entire 
amount of the abstract should be carried in bulk to the column of mis- 
cellaneous receipts in the account-current, and should be made the sub- 



52 

ject of but oue deposit certificate. The abstract should be made to 
exhibit the account on which each item is talien up, noting any infor- 
mation in the paymaster's possession which may enable this ofifice to 
indicate the appropriation to which it should be charged at the Trea- 
sury. If any items relate to suspensions, see also paragraph 2, this cir- 
cular. 

XIV. If any portion of a paymaster's balance as borne upon his 
"weekly statement consists of checks in transit for deposit, it should be 
so reported, (describing the checks by date and name of drawer,) until 
he is advised of its transfer to his credit on the books of the office to 
which sent for deposit. 

XV.. Paragraph 2, of circular 79, of this oftice, .is amended to read 
as follows : Paymasters will render separate accounts-current with ab- 
stracts, vouchers, &c., for each calendar month, the same to be trans- 
mitted within ten days after the close of the mouth. 

Whenever at the close of a calendar month it shall prove impractica- 
ble to render a se[)arate account for the mouth, or a longer time than ten 
days shall be found necessary therefor, the paymaster will at once ad- 
vise this office of the ijreveutiug circumstances and of the further delay 
required. 

XVI. The following circular to chief iiaymasters, dated the 22d 
August, 1871, is republished : 

Hereafter officers of the Pay Department .should not give receipts except in the fol- 
lowing ca.ses, viz: 

1. For transfers of money between themselves. 

2. For effects of deceased soldiers, or of deserters. 

3. For stoppages directed hy this office. 

4. For refundments made by officers iu service on account of over-payments made hy 
pai/masiers. 

In all other cases the party turning over, or refunding money, should place it in some 
authorized public depository, taking certificates of deposit in duplicate, or turn over 
the same to a disbursing officer of the department to which the money belongs. 

XVII. Extract from act of Congress approved July 12, 1870 : 

Sec. 5. And he it furthei- enacted, That all balances of appropriations contained iu the 
annual appropriation bills, and made ppecifically for the service of any fiscal year, and 
remaining unexpended at the expiration of such fiscal year, shall only be applied to the 
payment of expenses properly incurred during that year, or to the fulfillment of con- 
tracts properly made within that year; and such balances not needed for the faid pur- 
poses shall be carried to the surplus fund : Provided, That th'S section shall n .t apply 
to appropriations known as permanent or indefinite appropriatii>}is. 

Sec. 6. And he it further enacted. That all balances of appropriations which nhall have 
remained on the books of the Tieasury without beingdrawn against in the settlement 
of accounts for two years from the date of the last appropriation made by law, shall 
be reported by the Secretary of the Treasury to the Auditor of tlie Treaury whose 
duty it is to settle accounts thereunder, and the Auditor shall examine the books of his 
office, and certify to the Secretary whether such balances will be required in the settle- 
ment of any accounts pending in his oftice; and if it shall appear that such balances 
will not be required for this jjurpose, then the Secretary ujay include such balances in 
his warrant, whether the head of the proper department shall have certified that it may 
be carried into the general Treasury or not. But no appropriation for the payment of 
the interest or princiiial of the public debt, or to which Congress may have given a 
longer duration of law, shall be thus treated. 

Sec. 7. And he it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any department of 
the Government to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations 
made by Congress for that fiscal year, or to involve the Government in any contract for 
the future payment of money in excess of such appropriations. 

XVIII. Extract from act of Congress, February 12, 1868 : 

Sec. 2. And he it further enacted, That so much of the first section of the act of March 
3, 1809, entitled, "An act further to anieiMl the several acts for the establiMhment and 
regulation of the Treasury, War, and Navy Departments," as authorizes the I'resident, 
on the application of the Secretary of any Department, to transfer the moneys appro- 



53 

priated for a particular branch of that Department to another branch of expenditure in 
the same Department, be, and the same is hereby, repealed ; and all acts or parts of 
acts authorizing such transfers of appropriations be, and the same are hereby, repealed, 
and no money appropriated for one purpose shall hereafter be used for any other pur- 
pose than that for which it is appropriated. 

SCHUYLER COLFAX, 
Sjiealcer of the House of Representalives. 
B. F. WADE, 
President of the Senate pro tempore. 

Indorsed by the President, " Received Friday, January 31, 1868." 

BEi^J. ALYORD, 

Acting Paymaster- General, U. S. A. 



Exhibit N — Coutiuued. 
Extracts from laws relating to Pay Department. 

Par. 49. From and after the passage of tliis act it shall be the duty 
of every disbursiug officer of the United States having any public 
money intrusted to him for disbursement, to deposit the same with the 
Treasurer or some one of the assistant treasurers of the United States, 
and to draw for the same only as it may be required for payments to be 
miide by him in pursuance of law. * * * gee. 1, act June 14, 
18(i6. 

20. The forms of keeping- and rendering all public accounts whatso- 
ever shall be prescribed by the Department of the Treasury. Sec. 9, act 
May 8, 1792. 

72. No money hereafter appropriated shall be paid to any ])erson, for 
his compensation, who is in arrears to the United States, until such per- 
son shall have accounted for, and paid into the Treasury, all sums for 
which he may be liable. * * * Act Jan. 25, 1828. 

35. It shall be the duty of the Auditors charged with the examination 
of the accounts of the War and Navy Departments to keep all accounts 
of the receipts and expenditures of the public money in regard to those 
Departments, and of all debts due to the United States on moneys ad- 
van<'ed relative to those Departments. * * * ^^q^ 5^ ^^.^ March 
3, 1817. 

3(). All ofiQcers of the Pay * * * Department shall, previous 
to their entering on the duties of their respective offices, give good and 
suffi(;ieut bonds to the United States, fully to account for all moneys 
and public proi)erty which they may receive, in such sum as the Secre- 
tai'.v of War shall direct. * * * g^c. C, act April 24, 1816. 

41. P'roin and after the passage of this act any officer or agent of the 
United States, who shall receive public money which he is not author- 
ized to retain as salary, pay, or emolument, shall render his accounts 
monthly, instead of quarterly, as heretofore; and such accounts, with 
the vouchers necessary to the correct and prompt settlement thereof, 
shall l)e (Par. 50) sent to the bureau to which they pertain, and after 
exaiiiination there, shall be passed to the proper accounting-officer of 
the Treasury for settlement. Act July 17, 1802, and joint resolution 
March 2, 1807. 

32. * * * Balances, when stated by the Auditor and properly^ 
certitied by the Comptroller, as provided by that act, {act of March 3, 
1817, j shall betaken and considered as tinal and conclusive upon the 
executive branch of the Government, and be subject to revision only by 



54 

Congress or the proper courts. * * * j^^t March 30, 1868. See 
par. 64 and 69. 

From revised regnlaiions of 1863. 

Par. 1350. No person in the military service, while in arrears to the 
United States, sliall draw pay. When tlie Secretary of War shall find, 
by report of the Comptroller of the Treasury, or otherwise, that an offi- 
cer of the Army is in arrears to the United States, the Paymaster Gen- 
eral shall be directed to stop his pay to the amount of such arrears, by 
giving notice thereof to the i)aymasters ot the Army, and to the officer 
who may pav over the amount to any paymaster. * * * Par. 
995. 

Paymaster's Manual 1871, par. 298, 299, 9, 11. 

Paymaster's Manual 1867, par. 7, 9, 12, 35, 198, 200. 



Exhibit O. 

Engineer Department, 

Washington, March 21, 1867. 
Mr. Clarence King, 

Washington, D. C. : 

Sir: In accordance with directions of the Secretary of War of this 
date, you are appointed to take charge of the explorations provided for 
in section 3 of the act of Congress approved March 2, 1867, authorizing 
the Secretary of War to direct a geological and topographical explora- 
tion of the territory between the Pocky Mountains and the Sierra Ne- 
vada Mountains, including the route or routes of the Pacific Kailroad. 

The object of the exploration is to examine and describe the geological 
structure, geographical condition, and natural resources of a belt of 
country extending from the 120th meridian eastward to the 105th merid- 
ian, along the lOth parallel of latitude, with sufficient expansion north 
and south to include the lines of the "Central"' and "Union Pacific" Rail- 
roads, and as much more as may be consistent with accuracy and a 
proper progress, which should be not less than five degrees of longitude 
yearly. The exploration will be commenced at the 120th meridian, 
where it will connect with tlie geological survey of California, and should, 
if practicable, be completed in two years. 

You will examine all rock formations, mountain-ranges, detrital plains, 
mines, coal deposits, soils, minerals, ores, saline and alkaline deposits. 

You will also collect material for detailed maps of the chief mining- 
districts, coal-fields, salt-basins, &c., as well as material for a topograph- 
ical map of the region traversed, and conduct a systematic series of 
barometric and thermometric observations, with constant study of the 
atmospheric conditions bearing upon the subject of refraction and 
evaporation. 

You will also make collections in botany and zoology with the view 
to a memoir on these subjects, illustrating the occurrence and distribu- 
of plants and animals. 

You are authorized to employ the following assistants at the monthly 
rates of compensation set opposite to each respectively, namely : 

One assistant geologist $200 00 

One assistant geologist 150 00 

One topographical assistant 200 00 

One topographical assistant 150 00 



55 

One botanical collector $50 00 

One zoological collector 50 00 

One photographer 100 00 

Six laborers at rates of locality. 

Your own compensation as geologist in charge of the exploration will 
be at the rate monthly of $250. 

Ton are authorized to subsist the employes, including yourself, while 
on duty in the field, as is usual in like surveys, and you are authorized 
by the War Department to i)urchase subsistence stores from the sub- 
sistence department of the Army, when practicable. You are also author- 
ized by the War Department to call upon the commanding general of 
the Division of the Pacific to furnish an escort of twenty mounted men, 
(California cavalry, if possible,) with the proper number of non-commis- 
sioned officers, and the necessary camp equipage, subsistence, and 
transportation therfor. 

You are authorized to make the outfit for your employes, embracing 
camp equipage, subsistence, and transportation, to be paid for from the 
funds applicable to the exploration. 

You will make requisition upon the Engineer Department for funds 
as they may be needed for outfit and for the current expenditures for 
the mouth succeeding ; all funds expended by you must be in accord- 
ance with the rules and regulations prescribed for the disbursement of 
public funds, with which you will acquaint yourself before proceeding 
upon your exploration. 

You will make reports monthly, or more frequently if occasion requires 
it, of the progress of the exploration, stating in general terms the duties 
upon which the employes have been engaged and the results obtained. 
If not within reach of the line of mail communication at the time of making 
up your monthly reports, you will transmit them as soon thereafter as 
the means at your disposal will admit, either through a messenger or 
other safe conveyance, to the nearest mail station. 

You will be required to enter into bonds for the faithful expenditure 
of such funds, in the amount of $20,000, with two sureties, according 
to the form herewith. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. A. HUMPHREYS, 
Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers, Maj. Gen. Volunteers. 

Official copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers, and Bvt. Maj. Gen., U. S. A. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

Office of Geological Exploration 

OF THE Fortieth Parallel, 
J^ew York, Apr.il 3, 
Maj. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, 

Chief of Engineers : 

General: Your favor of March 22 is just received. I shall use the 
utmost promptness iu carrying out the instructions it contains, and hope 
to leave for San Francisco by the 1st of May. I enclose duplicate bonds 
for $20,000, as directed by your letter of March 21. Mr. A. M. Cozzins 
is a merchant of this city, and Mr. John E. Williams is president of 
the Metropolitan National Bank : both are well known to the United 



56 

States district attorney, who certifies to their ability to act as bonds- 
men. I have written to all the assistants whom I propose to employ, 
but have as yet only heard from Mr. James T. Gardner, the first topo- 
graphical assistant. He decides to accompany me, and will join me 
here this week to arrange the list of instruments. Until I hear defi- 
nitely from the other assistants, I cannot estimate for the funds which 
will be needed on the Atlantic side before starting. 

General Warreft has kindly informed me as to the method of disburse- 
ment of public funds, and I believe I am ready to proceed with the work 
given into my charge. 

1 have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

CLARENCE KING. 

Official copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers and Bvt. Maj. Gen. 



The following are the indorsements on the bond of Clarence King : 

Engineer Department, April 10, 1867. 
Respectfully recommended for approval of the Secretary of War. 

A. A. HUMPHREYS, 
Brig. Gen. and Chief of Engineers. 

War Department, Bureau of Military Justice. - 

April 12, 1867. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. The within bond is 
in due form of law, and the descrii^tion of the engagement of the obligor 
is full and explicit, and apparently quite sufficient for the purpose for 
whicb the instrument was designed. The evidence of the pecuniary 
responsibility of the sureties is satisfactory. It is recommended that the 
bond be approved. 

J. HOLT, 
Judge-Advocate General. 

Approved by the Secretary of War, April 13, 1867. 

ED. SCHRIYER, 

Major- General. 

Official copies : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers and Bvt. Maj. Gen. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

[Telegram.] 

San Francisco, California, 

December 30, 1872. 

General A. A. Humphreys, Cliief of Engineers : 

Survey successfully completed. Will close remaining business Feb- 
ruary 1. Health seriously impaired. Respectfully ask leave of absence 



57 

for February and March to recover ; also ask authority to turn over dis- 
bursements to Assistant Ennnous and place him in charge of office. 
This I ask because I am worn out, and even after recovery will need 
undivided attention for report. I urge this move for best interests of 
survey. Ask telegraph reply, for fear of snow blockading mail, and that 
I may telegraph Emmons to Washington to arrange bonds as disbursing 
agent. 

CLARENCE KING, 

Geologist in Charge. 

[ Indorsements. ] 

Office of Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, D. C, January 3, 1873. 
Respectfully submitted to the Hon. Secretary of War, with the recom- 
mendation that the within application of Mr. Clarence King, CTnited 
States civil engineer, for leave of absence and for authority to tempo- 
rarily transfer the charge of the disbursement of his office to Mr. S. F. 
Emmons, his assistant, may be granted, Mr. Emmons to furnish the 
neccessary bonds. 

A. A. HUMPHREYS, 
Brigadier-General and Chief of Engineers. 
Official copies : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieutenant- Colonel of Engineers, Brevet Major -General, TJ. S. A. 

Approved bv the Secretary of War, January 7, 1873. 

H. T. CROSBY, 

Chief Cleric. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

[Telegram.] 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, D. C, January 8, 1873. 

Clarence King, San Francisco, Cal. : 

Secretary of War approves your leave and transfer of disbursements 
to Emmons. 

By order: 

J. G. FOSTER. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

[Letter.] 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washingt07i, D. C, January 8, 1873. 

Mr. Clarence King, 

United States Civil Engineer, San Francisco, Cal.: 

Sir: The following telegram was sent you to-day from this Office : 
" Secretary of War approves your leave and transfer of disbursements 
to Emmons." 

You are therefore granted leave of absence for February and March, 
1873, and authorized to transfer disbursements and charge of office to 
Mr. Emmons. 

You will please report the date of the transfer, and at the close of 
each month, while on leave, your post-office address, &c. 



58 

The transfer of disbursements will necessitate the closing of your 
accounts. 

By command of Brigadier-General Humphreys. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieutenant- Colonel Engineers and Brevet 2Iajor- General. 

Official copies; 

J. G. FOSTER, 

Lieutenant- Colonel of Engineers, Brevet Major-General, U. S. A. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

United States Geological Exploration, 

Fortieth Parallel, 
San Francisco, January 2li, 1873. 
Brig. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, 

Chief of Engineers, U. S. A., Washington, D. C. : 
General : I have the honor to ask that Mr. S. F. Emmons, who will 
present this letter, may be furnished with the necessary form of bond 
to qualify him as disbursing officer, and that when he has complied 
with the conditions imposed by your office, I may be notified by letter 
at this place, as soon as practicable, in order that I may transfer cash 
and property to him. 

Very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

CLARENCE KING, 

Geologist in Charge. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

United States Geological Exploration 

OP the Fortieth Parallel. 
Brigadier-General A. A. Humphreys, 

Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. G. : 
General: I have the honor to transmit herewith my bond as re- 
quired for qualification as disbursing agent of the geological explora- 
tion of the fortieth parallel, and to request that Mr. King may be noti- 
fied of such qualification as early as convenient, that he may turn over 
to me cash and papers. 

My address will be 52 Army building, Houston street, New York. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. F. EMMONS, 
Assistant Geologist. 



Official copies : 



' J. G. FOSTER, 

Lieut. Col. Engineers and Bvt. Maj. Gen. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

Office op the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, D. C, March 7, 1873. 
Mr. S. F. Emmons, 

United States Civil Engineer, 52 Army Building, New York City : 
Sir : Your letter, (no date,) inclosing bond for ten thousand dollars 



59 

as disbursing agent Geological Exploration Fortieth Parallel, is re- 
ceived. 

Tlie bond has been approved by the Chief of Engineers, and trans- 
mitted, in compliance with law, to the Second Comptroller of the United 
States Treasury for file in his office. 

Mr. King has been advised accordingly, and he will be instructed to 
transfer to yon disbursements and temporary charge of office. 
By command of Brigadier-General Humphreys. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers, Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. A. 



Exhibit O — Continued. 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, JJ. C, March 7, 1873. 

Mr. Clarence King, 

Geologist, (S^c, San Francisco, Gal. : 
Sir : Mr, S. F. Emmons has filed bond for ten thousand dollars as 
United States disbursing agent. The bond has been approved by the 
Chief of Engineers, and transmitted, in compliance with law, to the 
Second Comptroller, United States Treasury, for file in his office. 

You will therefore close your accounts for disbursements by deposit- 
ing the unexpended balance of public funds in your hands to credit of 
the Treasurer of the United States with the depository where they now 
are, on account of the appropriations to which they pertain, and trans- 
mit the original certificate of deposit to this Office, and will transfer the 
temporary charge of your office to Mr. Emmons, as directed in letter 
from this Office of January 8, 1873. 

By command of Brigadier-General Humphreys. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. G. FOSTER. 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers, Bvt. Maj. Gen. JJ. 8. A. 

Official copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers and Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. 8. A. 



Engineer Department, 
Washington, June 30, 1837. 
Mr. James Eveleth, 

Clerk Engineer Department : 

Sir : You are hereby appointed the agent of this Department to dis- 
burse the appropriations for the lithographic press of the War Depart- 
ment, and for the salaries of clerks and messenger, and contingent ex- 
penses of this Department, and will accordingly receive from 1/ieut. R. 
E. Lee such balances as he may transfer to you on account of said ap- 
propriations, for which you will be held accountable at the Treasury. 
I am, &c., 

C. GRATIOT. 

Official copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieut. Col. of Engineers and Bvt. Maj. Gen. 



6o 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, D. C, October 1, 1872. 
Mr. James Eveleth, 

Agent Engineer Department, 

Washington, D. G. : 
Sir: Your communication of October 1, with reference to tbe stop- 
page in the ofQce of the Third Auditor of certain requisitions for funds 
made by you for the pagment of emploges in this office, has been re- 
ceived and forwarded by me to the honorable Secretary of War. 

The recent practice of the Treasury Department, under the act of 
August 4, section 14, 1854, makes it imperative that all disbursing 
agents referred to in that act should enter into honds to the United 
States, and I have to request that you will furnish bonds to the amount 
of $10,000. 

This action does not arise from any questioning of, or imputation uj^on, 
your official action as a disbursing agent of this Department, which has 
been marked, during the long period you have acted in that capacity, by 
the greatest accuracy and most perfect integrity, but from the necessity 
of each agent conforming to t^e terms of the law, with reference to 
hands. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

A. A. HUMPHREYS, 
Brigadier-General and Ghief of Engineers. 



Indorsement on letter from Mr. James Eveleth, agent Eugiueer De- 
partment, dated October 3, 1872, (1185, G. K. 5, 1872,) complying with 
Engineer letter of 2d instant, inclosing his ho7id for $10,000, as disburs- 
ing agent of Eugiueer Department, with Messrs. Lewis McKenzie and 
Andrew Jamieson, of Alexandria, Va., as sureties. 

Official copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 

Lieutenant-Golonel Engineers, Brevet Major-General, U. iS. A,. 

Office of Chief of Engineers, Vctober 4, 1872. 
Respectfully returned to Mr. James Eveleth. 

The bond inclosed should be amended by leaving out the recital 
through which a pencil has been drawn, and using wax or wafer seals, 
and, when executed as thus designated, will be acceptable to the Ghief 
of Engineers. 
By order of Brigadier-General Humphreys : 

THOS. LINCOLN CASEY, 

Major of Engineers. 



Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, D. G., October 8, 1872. 
Brig. Gen. A. A. Humphreys, 

Ghief of Engineers, Washington : 
General : In compliance with instructions indorsed on my letter to 
you of the 3d instant, I respectfully submit herewith a modified bond 
for $10,000 to secure faithful performance of my duties as disbursing 



6i 

agent of the Engineer Department, with Messrs. Lewis McKenzie and 
Andrew Jamieson, of Alexandria, Va., as sureties. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAMES EVELETH. 
A true copy : 

J. G. FOSTER, 
Lieutenant- Colonel Engineers and Brevet Major- General. 



Engineer Department, 
Washington, June 30, 1837. 
Mr. James Eveleth, 

ClerJc, Engineer Department : 

Sir : You are hereby appointetl the agent of this Department to dis- 
burse the appropriations for the lithographic press of the War Depart- 
ment, and for the salaries of clerks and messengers, and contingent ex- 
penses of this Department, and will accordingly receive from Lieut. E. 
E. Lee such balances as he may transfer to you on account of said ap- 
propriations, for which you will be held accountable at the Treasury. 
I am, »&;c., 

C. GRATIOT. 



Exhibit P. 

Ordnance-Office, 
War Department, Washington, June 29, 1864. 
Sir : I have the honor to submit, for your examination and approval, 
the accompanying instructions, explanatory of the laws and regulations 
relating to the disbursement of public money, prepared for the informa- 
tion and government of the officers of the Ordnance Department. 
Very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

GEO. D. RAMSAY, 
Brigadier-General, Chief of Ordnance. 
Hon. Edwin M. Stanton, 

Secretary of War. 
Approved July 9, 1864. 

By order of the Secretary of War. 

C. A. DAXA, 
Assistant Secretary of War. 

The references to the paragraphs of the Revised Regulations for 
THE Army follow the numerical order given in the edition of 1861. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 
Instructions for making cash accounts. 
accountability. 

1. Every disbursing officer of the Ordnance-Department, who are 
or other persons accountable for ordnance-funds, shall trans- °°™"'^'^- 
mit to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, within ten days 
after the expiration of each month, an account-current of 
all moneys received, expended, and remaining on hand, with 
the necessary vouchers and abstracts, made according 



• 62 

to the forms hereinafter prescribed. — (Act July 17, 1862. 
Amended by act of INIarch 2, 1867.) 
Deiinqueuts. 2. Any ofiBcer failing to render his accounts shall be deemed 
a defaulter, and be subject to all the penalties prescribed for 
the embezzlement of public money. — (Same act.) 

re^urns"^'^'^**^''^ ^" CJopics of the cwcount Current and abstract of disburse- 
ments and a special abstract of purchases will be transmit- 
ted to the Orduance-Ofrjce for use there, within twenty days 
after the expiration of the mouth for which due. 
Object of luak- 4. The objcct of a system of accounts is to insure the 

lug accoiiD s. application of public resources to their prescribed euds; and 
this is effected by furnishing those to whose supervision such 
transactions are committed by law with the data or evidence 
of disposition upon which they can base an intelligent and 
correct judgment touching the fldelitj' with which the trust 
confided has been executed. 
Pre]imiiiai-\ ex- 5. In Compliance with the instructions of the Secretary of 

aminatiou. ^^^ Treasury, the accounts of disbursing ofiBcers are referred, 
immediately on their receipt at the Auditor's Office, to the 
Ordnance-Office for the administrative examination formerly 
required by paragraph 1040, Army Eegulations.^ — (Circular 
of Second Comptroller, June 20, 1863, par. 6.) 
Eesponsibiiity c. The Organization of the Ordnance-Department being 

officers"^"'^"""^ such that at the principal arsenals the commanding officer 
directs, while the military storekeeper or junior officer dis- 
burses the funds, all ex[)enditures disallowed for other than 
informal causes will be charged to the officer ordering them. 
— (Paragraphs 1006 and 1007, Army Regulations.) 

MONEYS RECEIVED — CREDIT ACCOUNTS. 

7. Funds received consist either of advances from the 
Treasury, transfers from other officers, or the proceeds 
of SALES or RENT of orduauce property. 

advances. 

Estimates of 8. Remittances are made ou estimates of fuuds ( Fomi 23)-. 
fuuds. prepared by officers in charge of posts or on special duty, 

and forwarded to the Chief of Ordnance at the beginning of 
each quarter. 

Officers serving in the field are requested to supply them- 
selves, as far as possible, with all articles required for cur- 
rent service by requisition, in preference to purchasing them 
and making estimates for that purpose. 

To be specific. 9. Estimates W' ill specify the objects for which funds are 
required under each head of appropriation separately, and 
will exhibit them as much in detail as is necessary for con- 
veying a correct impression of the purposes contemplated. 

Labor. iQ. Separate items in future will distinguish payments for 

services from materials, and the probable number of employes 
will be stated. 

Special order. s. H. In cascs whcrc articlcs or work is estimated for in 
pursuance of special orders, a reference to such authority, 
sijecifyiug the date, will be given. 

Depositories. 12. Thc dcpository most convenient for keeping funds not 



required for immediate use will be designated in the esti- 
mate, in order that the draft may be made payable on the 
point desired. 

13. Certificates of indebtedness are issued by the Treasurer Advice of 
of the United States, and will be supjilied Avhen they can be ^'"a^ces. 
made available, according to the regulations prescribed by 

the Secretary of the Treasury In March, 1862. 

14. When a remittance is requested in favor of any officer 
he is advised thereof on the same day ; and when the Sec- 
retary of War has issued his requisition on the Treasury for 
the amount requested, a similar notice is sent from the 
Auditor's Ofiice. 



APPEOPRIATIONS. 

15. The general appropriations for the ordnance service 
are made from year to year under certain established heads 
embracing- the items of expenditure enumerated below. 

As the appropriation for the " Purchase of arms, &c.," 
has been discontinued, no further expenditures will be made 
under that head. 

IG. The special appropriations are explicit in meaning 
and of a local or temporary interest only. 

17. ^'■Current expenses of the ordnance service.^'' — Under this 
head are included all indirect expenses of a transient char- 
acter, viz: 

Expenses on account of the reception, storing, and ship- 
ping of ordnance stores ; police and office duties ; rents, 
tolls, fuel, and light; stationery and office furniture; tools 
and instruments for use; i)ublic animals, forage, and vehi- 
cles ; incidental repairs to grounds and buildings, i&c. 

18. ''^Repairs and improvements at arsenals, ti'c." — Under 
this head are included all indirect expenses of a permanent 
character, viz : 

Expenses for erecting new and enlarging or rei^airing old 
buildings ; makingand repairing inclosures, wharv^es, drains, 
and sewers; grading and paving grounds and walks; pur- 
chase and repair of machinery, steam-engines, shafting, and 
belting; and all other permanent repairs and improve- 
ments. 

19. ^^ Ordnance, ordnance stores, and supplies, tC'c." — Under 
this head are included all direct expenses for the purchase, 
manufacture, and repair of field and siege cannon, car- 
riages, implements, equipments, and ammunition; small- 
arms, accouterments, and equipments for infantry, cavalry, 
and artillery, with the appendages and parts appertaining 
thereto, including i^acking- boxes and saddlers' and armor- 
ers' tools for issue. 

20. ^'Armament of fortifications^^ — Under this head are 
included all direct expenses for the purchase, manufacture, 
and repair of garrison and sea-coast cannon, carriages, im- 
plements, equipments, and ammunition, and the expenses of 
mounting guns of this description. 

21. '•'•Arming and equipping the militia.^'' — All expenses 
attending the delivery or transportation of ordnance and 
ordnance stores to the States, at some designated and ac- 



lu general. 



In particular 



Arsenals. 



64 

cessible point, will be defrayed from this appropriation by 
the disbnrsiug-ofilcer of tbe arsenal or depot whence issued. 
The appropriations out of which articles issued were paid 
for will be reimbursed at the Ordnance Office. 

22. ^'■Purchase of (junpowder and lead.'''' — For procuring 
gunpowder, pig-lead, lead-wire, and bullets. 

Expenses on account of inspections, transportation, and 
advertising will be paid from the same appropriation as the 
articles themselves. 



To officers 
the Army. 



TRANSFERS. 

Invoices. 23. For the form of invoices to be used in such cases, see 

page 28. They should be made on a half-sheet of letter- 
jiaper, and inclosed in each of the accounts-current. Con- 
sult paragraph 77. 

When an officer credits himself with fands for which a 
deceased officer was accountable, the invoice should be cer- 
tified to by the board of survey making the inventory, or 
by other competent testimony. 

SALES, ETC. 

of 24. Sales of arms and equipments to officers of the Army 
for their personal use must be made at regulation prices, 
and if by officers in the field, on written authority from the 
chief ordnance officer of the department. 

An abstract of the receipts from these sales will be made 
according to the form prescribed on page 27, unless they are 
so few as to admit of being conveniently entered in the 
account-current. — (Paragraph 1385, Army Regulations.) 
Condemned 25. The procccds of the sale of condemned stores will be 
stores. verified by a certified copy of the inspector's list, the auc- 

tioneer's certified account of sale, with the sub- vouchers 
supporting the expenses charged on account of commission, 
advertising, revenue-tax, &c. — (Paragraph 1032, Army Eeg- 
ulations.) 

These vouchers, in future, will accompany the monthly 
cash-accounts in which the officer credits the United States 
with the net proceeds. — (See form of account- sales ^ P«ige 26.) 
Anction sales. Whenever, in the opinion of the commanding officer, the 
articles to be sold can be disposed of with advantage to the 
Government by some suitable person in his employ, he is 
authorized to direct such person to cry the sale, paying him 
for this service a fair allowance, in addition to his regular 
wages, from the proceeds of the sale. When the services 
of a regular auctioneer are deemed necessary, the officer 
will report the circumstances of the case to the Chief of 
Ordnance for his approval. 

No revenue tax is required where the sale is made by a 
subordinate acting as auctioneer. 

20. When sales of serviceable stores are made to contract- 
ors or other persons by authority of the Secretary of War 
or the Chief of Ordnance, the entry in the account-current 
must give the date of the order. 
Eents. 27. The amounts collected from the rent of dwelling- 



Serviceable 
sto-es. 



How credited. 



65 

houses at armories and arsenals occupied by workmen will 
be specified on a rent-roll (Form 20) to particularize the 
credit in the account-current. The price will be fixed by 
the commanding officer, and the disbursing officer will col- 
lect the sums due by retaining the proper amount when 
making the monthly payments. — (Paragraph 1409, Army 
Eegulations.) 

28. The proceeds of sales and rents will always be cred- 
ited to the current ai)propriatious for articles of a similar 
nature; and the appropriations will invariably be stated in 
the entry in the account-current. 

CUSTODY OF FUNDS. 

29. Disbursing officers will observe the requirements of ^"^P^"^. ^"°f^ 
the following paragraph for the Regulations for the Army: posit. ^^ 

"992. The Treasury Department having provided, by 
arrangement with the assistant treasurers at various points, 
secure depositories of funds in the hands of disbursing offi- 
cers, all disbursing officers are required to avail themselves, 
as far as possible, of this arrangement, by depositing with 
the assistant treasurers such funds as are not wanted for 
immediate use, and drawing the same in convenient sums 
as wanted." 

30. When it may be convenient to do so, deposits can also National banka. 
be made in any national bank which has been designated as 

a depository of public moneys, provided such deposits do 
not exceed the amount of the bonds and obligations lodged 
by the bank with the Treasury Department as security 
therefor.— (Sec. 54, act February 25, 1863.) 

31. Disbursing officers stationed in the cities of Boston, Exceptious. 
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, or San Francisco, or in 

their immediate vicinity, will continue their deposits with 
the assistant treasurers or collectors designated as deposit- 
aries, as heretofore. — (Circular from Ordnance-Office, No. 
22, series of 1804.) 

A list of the designated United States depositories at 
the present time is given on page 32. 



MONEYS EXPENDED— DEBIT ACCOUNTS. 

32. Funds expended consist either of disbursements in 
payment of purchases or services, transfers to other 
officers, or refundments into the Treasury. 

purchases. 

33. Vouchers for articles purchased, consisting of bills of vouchers. 
parcels with explicit receipts, will be made agreeably to 

Form No. 17 ; (a) letter size, (b) cap size, and (c) special for 
advertisements. 

34. In stating such accounts, the date of each separate How stated. 
purchase, the name and quantity of each article, and the 

price of each per unit of number, weight, or measure, will 
be specified in the body of the account. 

35. The pur[)ose for which any article was procured, or Application. 
other explanation, will be stated in all cases opposite the 

article in the column for "remarks." 
5 H E 



66 



Importance of 3G. l)isbursiii<4" officei's should always bear in uiiud that 
being explicit. ^^^ accouiits wbich tbey state are to be examiued aud 
decided upon by accounting officers who may be unac- 
quainted with the professional business to which the accounts 
relate, and who cannot be presumed to be familiar with all 
its details, and whose duty it is to suspend or to disallow 
accounts the propriety of which is not made manifest to 
them. Terms of art or technical phrases should be sparingly 
used in stating accounts, when terms in common use are 
equally applicable. 

Special items. 37. Expenditures of an unusual character, such as ma- 
chinery, steam-engines, horses, safes, books, printed blanks, 
&c., will not be made unless specially authorized by the 
Chief of Ordnance. When such expenses are prospective, 
but not immediate, they can be embraced in the quarterly 
estimate of funds, accompanied with the necessary exi)la- 
nations. 

38. Buildings and other permanent improvements require 
the sanction of the Secretary of War. — (Paragraphs 1060 
and 1411, Army Kegulations.) 

39. At posts where gas has been introduced, the quantity 
consumed in the quarters of officers and enlisted men will 
be paid for by them, respectively; and the voucher will 
specify the shops and buildings where the quantity charged 
to the United States has been consumed. 

40. When accounts are founded upon written agreements 
or contracts, as in the case of new buildings, &c., reference 
should be made to the agreement in the body of the account, 
and the original agreement should be transmitted with the 
first account arising under it. 

Siib-voiicLers. 41. Where charges are made by one person for payment 
made to another, the account will specify particulars, and 
■will be supported by receipts from the person to whom the 
payment was made. 



Fixtures. 



Gas. 



Contracts. 



SERVICES. 



Vouchers. 



42. Individual accounts will be stated on Form No. 17 ; 
pay-rolls at armories, on Form No. 19 ; and elsewhere, on 
No. 18. 
Howstateti. 43. Accounts for services will show the occupation or kind 
of service, the time employed, the dates within which ren- 
dered, the rate of compensation, the amount due, and the 
revenue-tax retained. 
'workmentobe 44. Hired mcu iu the ordnance service shall be engaged 
engaged by the ^^ daily wagcs, cxcept men on piece-work, and paid, only 
for such days or parts of days as they actually work, at the 
end of the calendar month, or when discharged. Working 
time, by daylight only, shall average ten hours throughout 
the year. — (Paragraph 1405, Army Regulations.) 
"Wages. 45. As a general rule, the same wages will be allowed 

hired men as are paid for similar services at private estab- 
lishments in the vicinity. 
Increase of 40. The ucccssary force of employes will be engaged by 
wages. ^]^Q officer in charge, but any Increase of wages shall be 

promptly reported to the Ordnance-Bureau, with the neces- 
sary explanations. — (Paragraph 1407, Army Eegulations.) 



67 

47. Extra time, for work in addition to tiiat in regular Extra time. 
hours, will be counted everywhere as time and a half, or 

what is the same, the pay will be increased fifty per cent. 
for the time so employed. The actual amount of extra time 
charged for will be stated on the pay-roll in red ink, in the 
column for " witnesses." 

Labor on Sunday will only be resorted to in cases where Sunday. work, 
the exigencies of the service render the work strictly 
necessary. — (General Order, A. G. O., November 15, 1862.) 

48. Authority to employ a single or additional clerks — cierks. 
civilians — must be obtained from the Ciiief of Ordnance, 

and the proposed rate of compensation will be stated. — 
(Paragraph 1010, Army Regulations.) 

The compensation of clerks at armories is fixed bv the act 
of August 23, 1842. 

49. The money value of any piece of work spoiled by the spoUe.i work, 
fault or incompetency of a Avorkmau shall be charged to 

him on the pay-roll. — (Paragraph 1408, Army Eegulations.) 

50. Extra-duty pay will be confined to the enlisted men, Estra-dntypay. 
detailed as clerks and messengers at the several geograph- 
ical division and department headquarters. — (General 

Orders No. 192, A. G. O., 1803. Paragraphs 902 and 905, 
Army Itegulatious.) 

51. It is made the duty of disbursing officers to collect the Taxes. 
income-tax on all disbursements made by them in payment 

of services. 

52. The tax to be deducted is five per cent, of the excess Kate of tax. 
over $2 per day. As this rule is made on an assumed basis 

of twenty-five working days in each mouth, when a x^erson 
is employed for a greater number of days, or by the piece, 
the tax is five per cent, of the excess over $50. — (Circular 
:No. 45 of 1864.) 

53. Receipts will be taken for the net amount paid after salary receipts. 
deducting the tax, but the pay account or roll shall exhibit 

the total amount of salary and the tax withheld. — (Decision 
of Second Comptroller, February 24, 1864.) 

54. The tax collected and paid over to the Commissioner Eutryoftax. 
of Internal Revenue will be entered in the abstract of dis- 
bursements, in the manner prescribed in Form 21, page 29. 

55. Revenue form No. 10, exhibiting the details of the tax xransferof tax. 
collected, is forwarded, with a check for the amount, to the 

Office of the Internal Revenue. It forms no part of the 
accounts to the Auditor. 

56. The Commissioner should be recpiested, in the letter of Tax-receipts. 
transmittal, to forward the receipts for the tax turned over 

to the Ordnance-Office, from whence t'.ie triplicate will be 
returned to the officer. 

tra:n'SPOETATiox and other expenses. 



57. Accounts for the transportation of supplies (Form 17) 
will specify the articles carried, the number or weight 
thereof, the places tiom and to which conveyed, when per- 
formed, and the price. 

If the charge be for transporting stores from the post to a 
distant place, an original bill of lading and the receipt of the 



Freisilit. 



68 

person to whom the articles were addressed, or other proper 
evidence of delivery, should be annexed to the voucher. 

Mileage. ^8. Accounts for the transportation or traveling allow- 

ance of hired men will state the distance traveled, the pur- 
pose of the journey, and the dates between which performed. 
It must be sustained by a copy of the order directing the 
journey, or an extract from it, certified to by the officer 
giving the order, with a certificate that thejouruey has been 
jierfbrmed. 

Ten cents a mile is allowed for travel on duty uiider orders, 
and the distance is computed by the shortest mail-route as 
given in the General-Post-Office book. — (Paragraph 1410, 
Army Kegulations.) 

Tax. No tax will be withheld from the refundment of actual ex- 

penses incurred in traveling on public business, but mileage 
will be counted and taxed as salary. — (Paragraph 52.) 

Sundry items. 59. Accouuts for rcuts, tolls, &c., will Specify particulars, 

so as to exhibit the precise nature of the transaction. 
Qnartennaster's 60. Expcuscs ou accouut of the transportation of ord- 
Department. naucc and orduaucc stores proper, store-houses at depots and 
military posts, office-furuiture in the field, journeys for cash- 
ing Treasury drafts, postage, and. telegraph-dispatches on 
public business, are borne by the Quartermaster-s Depart- 
ment. — (Paragraphs lUGl, 1088, 1110, and 1112, Army Eegu- 
lations.) 

ON VOUCHERS IN GENERAL. 

To be approTcd. Gl. When disbursements are made by a military store- 
keei)er, the accounts and rolls must be certified to by the 
signature of the directing-officer before payment is made. — 
(Paragraph 1399, Army Kegulations.) 

Appropriations. 02. When expenditures under different appropriations 
occur in one voucher, the items pertMiniug to each will be 
entered under it. As the varying character of the work 
precludes a similar arrangement of the workmen on the 
pay-rolls, the officer in command will see that the amounts 
charged to the several appropriations are carefullly com- 
piled from the daily reports of the foremen and master- 
workmen, aiul that these reports are correctly jnepared. 

Special orders. 63. lu all cascs where the expenditures are made in pur- 
suance of special orders from the Chief of Ordnance, a refer- 
ence to such orders, specifying the date, will be macle in the 
column for "remarks." This includes an3' increase in the 
wages of workmen. — (Paragraph 46.) 

If orders emanate from any other source than the Chief 
of Ordnance, then a certified copy will be appended to the 
voucher. — (Paragraph 446, Army Regulations.) 

Keceipts. 64. The receipt annexed to individual accounts will ex- 

press the sum jiaid by words written out in full, and not in 
figures. 

Agents. 65. The receipt must be signed, when practicable, by the 

person in whose name the account is stated. If signed by 
another as agent, the disbursing officer will certify on the 
face of the voucher that the agent is known to be duly 
authorized to sign in behalf of the principal, firm, or corpo- 
ration in question. 



69 



Deceased wor 



60. When signed by anotlier uot recognized as the fiscal Powers of at. 
iigeut of the creditor, a regular power of attorney, executed *'^™®y- 
after the account is due and payable, must accompany the 
latter.— (Consult General Order No. 208, A. G. O., 1863.) 

67. When the signature doesnot legibly express the name signatures. 
of the writer, or when an individual makes his mark (x) in- 
stead of signing his name, it must be witnessed by a third 

party. The mark must always be made by the person him- 
self, and not for him. — (Paragraph 998, Army Eegulations.) 

68. The accounts of deceased workmen or other creditors 
will be forwarded to the Ordnance Office, with the proper men 
evidence that the claimant is the legal representative of the 
deceased. Where '•'■ letters of administration " are not taken 
out, the affidavit of the claimant to his or her connection to 
the deceased as the nearest of kin, attested by the deposi- 
tions of two disinterested witnesses, well acquainted with 
the parties, is required as satisfactory evidence of the valid- 
ity of the claim. The certificate and seal of a court of rec- 
ord must be a-ppended to the depositions as evidence that 
the person administering the oaths was duly commissioned, 
and acting in his official capacity at the time of the execu- 
tion of the foregoing papers. 

When the amount is small and the circumstances of the 
claimant render the expense of obtaining the latter certifi- 
cate burdensome, it may be omitted, to be furnished subse- 
quently, at the option of the accounting officer. 

When accounts of this character are audited and admitted 
at the Treasury Department, they will be returned to the 
disbursing officer for jiayment. — (Paragraph 1015, Army 
Eegulations.) 

69. Affidavits, agreements, powers of attorney, letters of stamp-duties. 
administration, and deeds must be made valid by affixing 

the proper revenue stamps, duly canceled, with the date 
and initials of the party executing the instrument at the 
time of execution. 



ABSTRACTS OF EXPENDITURES. 



70. The abstract of disbursements^ Form 21 (a), serves as an Disbursements, 
index and summary of all the vouchers classified under the 
respective appropriations. The duplicate for the Ordnance 

Office will hereafter be an exact copy of that to the Treasury. 

71. All the expenses occurring in any month should, if Preparation, 
practicable, be paid and embraced in the abstract for that" 

month. Payments made in one mouth must not be included 
in the abstract for another month. The vouchers will be 
numbered and entered in one continued series in the order 
of payment. 

Transfers and deposits will not be entered in the abstract, 
but always in the account-current. 

72. A special abstract of purchases will be made in future Purchases. 
to the Ordnance-Office, as prescribed in Form 21 (b), com- 
mencing from July 1, 1864. The articles will be arranged 

in the order adopted for the classification of ordnance-stores. 



ro 



DISBURSEMENTS IN GENERAL. 



73. Atteution is called to the following extracts from the 
" Eevised Regulations for the Army :" 
Pnrchasing- "1379. The pnrchases and contracts for cannon, projec- 
power. tiles, powder, small-arms, and accoutermeuts are made or 

specially ordered by tbe Chief of Ordnance, under the direc- 
tion of the Secretary of War."— (Sec. 3, act Feb. 8, 1815.) 
Economy en- "1053. It is the duty of every commanding officer to en- 
'""'^ ■■ force a rigid economy in the public expenses." 

Kecipts in blank " 997. AH officcrs are forbid to give or take any receipt in 
forbiddeu. blank for public money or property ; but in all cases the 

voucher shall be made out in full, and the true date, place, 
and exact amount of money, in words, shall be written out 
in the receipt before it is signed." -' 

Disbursinff offi- u 1000. 1^0 officer disbursiugor directingthe disbursement 

cers to be dism- „ ^ J.^ -i-^ • iiii ii-ii 

teiested. 01 moucy tor the military service shall be concerned, directly 

or indirectly, in the purchase or sale, for commercial pur- 
poses, of any article intended for, making a part of, or ap- 
pertaining to the department of the public service in which 
he is engaged ; nor shall take, receive, or apply to his own 
u.se any gain or emolument, under the guise of presents or 
otherwise, for negotiating or transacting any public busi- 
ness, other than what is or may be allowed by law." 
Military officers "1002. I«Io officcr Or agcut iu the military scrvicc shall 
ested^ '^'°^'"^' purchase from any otber jjerson in the military service, or 
make any contract with any such person to furnish supplies 
or services, or make any purchase or contract, in which such 
person shall be admitted to any share or part, or to any 
benefit to arise therefrom." 
Insurance. " 1014. No officer has authority to insure public property 

or money." 

TRANSFERS. 

Closing acconnts. 74. When a disbursing officer is relieved he shall close all 
his accounts as far as possible. Outstanding debts stated 
and certified to will be handed to his successor for payment, 
together with a certified abstract of the same, a duplicate 
of which will accompany his final account-current to the 
Ordnance Office. Public funds will be turned over to the 
officer relieving him, and triplicate receipts taken according 
to the form on page 28. — (Paragraph 1009, Army Regula- 
tions.) 

On the death of any officer in charge of public money, 
his successor should close his accounts and forward them 
for settlement in like manner. 
Adjusting ap- 75. When au officer in closing his accounts finds himself 

propna ens. (jpbtor Under some appropriatibns, he cannot transfer this 
indebtedness to another person, neither can an officer trans- 
fer money from one head of appropriation to another. The 
amount turned over will be charged to those appropriations 
of which he has positive balances, and tlie necessary trans- 
fers between the remaining debit and credit balances will be 
adjusted at the Treasury on the settlement of his accounts. 
Authority re- 7G. Officers of the Ordnance Department are not author- 

qmsite. ^^^^ ^^ ^^^^^^ ^^,p^ public fuiids lu their custody without 

orders clearly expressing or necessarily implying such action. 



71 

77. Acting ortlu an ce- officers whose duties or instructions Moneys received 
do not require tbein to make any expenditures should, if *'^^''™''^'®'^" 
practicable, make monthly transfers of all moneys received 

by them from sales of arms and equipments to the Chief 
Ordnance-Officer of the Department or to such officer as he 
may direct, and transmit their accounts for settlement. — 
(Paragraphs I, 3, and 24.) 

REFUNDMENTS. 

78. When, from any cause, drafts cannot be used, they Canceled drafts. 
will be returned to the Treasury for cancellation, through 

the Ordnance-Office. The amount will not be taken up in 
the account-current. 

79. When refundments are made into the Treasury by de- Deposits. 
I)Osits with the assistant treasurers or depositaries, the origi- 
nal " certificate of deposit " will accompany the accounts to 

the Auditor. It is unnecessary for the depositing officer to 
designate the appropriations when making deposits. 

SO. As the Treasury Eegulatious require, on the death of Funds to the 
a disbursing officer, 'that any funds to his credit with aoSs.^'^*'*'^^'®*^ 
United States depository be refunded into the Treasury, his 
successor should, if such funds are not previously transfer- 
red, forward an official statement of the balance on deposit 
to the Ordnance Office, for the action referred to. 

ACCOUNTS IN GENERAL. 

81. A recapitulation or general account of the receipts Accounts -.'cur- 
and expenditures during each month, for the purpose of '^*''^*' 
comparison and balance, is made iu the account-current. — 

(Form IG, page 20.) 

This account will be rendered by every officer in the pos- 
session of public fuuds, whether he makes expenditures 
during the month or not. 

82. The statement of receipts and expenditures under each Appropriation 
appropriation, (Form No. 20, old numeration,) printed upon stetement. 
the back of the account-current, will always be made on the 
duplicate for the Ordnance-Office. It is no longer required 

as a separate return with the monthly papers. When the 
number of appropriation accounts exceeds the number of 
columns allotted for tbat purpose, a slip of paper will be 
pasted along the first blank column, in the form of a leaf, 
sufficient to contain the additional headings. The same ex- 
pedient applies to abstracts of disbursements in like circum- 
stances. 

83. Disbursing officers who are under bond must keep Bonds. 
their accounts under each quadrennial bond separate and 
distinct. The date of the bond will be stated in the caption 

of each account-current. On the expiration of a bond, the 
officer will close his accounts and deposit the balance due in 
the nearest or customary depository. 

As this change will generally take place during the month, 
the accounts for the said month will consist of two vseries, 
the one commencing under the new, where the other left off 
under the old bond. 



72 



Payment on ac- 84 Pnyments, uot to excced four-fifths of the value of 
coimt. ^^Q work done ou account of any contract or services per- 

formed in part, may be made in case the contract embraces 
operations of long continuance. Such payments ou account, 
under au unfulfilled contract, not being admitted at the 
Treasury, will not be charged in the monthly accounts ; but 
a statement specifying the amount of each payment, to 
whom paid, and on what account, will be inclosed in the 
duplicate account-current for the files of the Orduauce- 
Office, in order that the true state of the funds ou hand 
may be known. 

85. Ofllcers doing duty in the Ordnance Department will 
forward with their accounts certified copies of the orders of 
their commanding ofticers aflectiug their responsibility for 
public funds. 

80. The requirements of the following paragraph of the 
th°rough'the"oni° Army Eegulations will be strictly observed in future : 
nancet)ffice. " 1042. When an account is suspended or disallowed in 

the })roper ofiice of the Treasury Department, or explanatiou 
or evideuce required from the officer, it shall be promptly 
notified to him by the head of the military bureau. And 
all vouchers, evideuce, or explanation returned by him to 
the Treasury Department shall pass through the bureau." 



Acting O rd 
nance officers. 



Suspended 



MISCELLANEOUS DIRECTIONS. 



Folding. 



Indorsinj 



Transmitting. 



87. All cash papers will be folded exactly three and a 
half inches wide. Form JSTo. 2L makes five equal folds. 
The pay-roll will be folded sejiarately and numbered as 
pages. 

When all the vouchers cannot be entered ou one sheet of 
the abstract, a second or third sheet will be pasted on the 
left-hand margiu. 

Vouchers on Form jSTo. 17, (b,) when they embrace several 
sheets, will be gummed together at the top, and all the 
blank receipts, except the last, clipped off. 

88. Indorsements will be made according to the x>rescribed 
forms. The duplicate papers for the Chief of Ordnance will 
have the words " Ordnance-Office" written on the back of 
each. 

81). Estimates of funds and cash returns will be accom- 
panied by separate letters of transmittal, embracing no 
other papers and referring to no other subject. Estimates 
will always be made out according to the prescribed Form 
No. 23, and not in the form of a letter. Explanatory re- 
marks should be embodied in or appended to the estimate, 
and not in the letter of transmittal. 

00. Vouchers marked "original" should be sent to the 
Treasury. 

01. Clerks should not be employed in making out cash 
papers whose handwriting and figures are not neat and 
legible. 

02. Aranuscript returns should not be rendered, unless it 
was not possible to procure the proper printed forms in 
time. 



73 

RECORDS. 

93. Duplicate sets of voucliers will be retained by disbars- Voucher. 
iug officers to guard against the accidental loss of those 
forwarded for settlement, and for preserving a record of 

the transactions at the post. 

Vouchers in packages of a convenient size will be bundled, Account-books 
labeled, and filed away for future reference. 

94. At arsenals and permanent depots an account-book 
will be kept, in which will be entered copies of all accounts- 
current, ai)propriation statements, abstracts of disburse- 
ments, and estimates of funds. A due proportion of pages 
should be assigned to each of these heads, so as to make a 
continuous series of each kind. Tags will facilitate a ready 
reference to the several divisions. Entries should be made 
concurrent with the receipt and expenditure of funds. 

This book will always be open to the examination of the 
inspecting officer, who is required to report upon the manner 
in which it is kept. — (Paragraph 1428, Army Regulations.) 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 22— Series of 1864.] 
Deposits in national hanks proMhited, 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, April 22, 1864. 
The following order from the Wa^Oflflce in relation to the deposit of 
public funds in the national banks, is published for the information 
and guidance of the ofldcers of this Department. 

GEO. D. RAMSAY, 
Brirjadier-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



War Department, 
Waslmigton City, Jpril 22, 1864. 
General: The Secretary of War directs that you instruct all officers under your 
command who have public money in their charge, in either of the cities of Boston, New- 
York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and San Francisco, that they are not to deposit such 
money in any of the national banks, but are to continue their deposits with the assist- 
ant treasurers or collectors designated as depositaries, as heretofore. 
I am, general, your obedient servant, 

C. A. DANA, 
Assistant Secret ary of War. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 4.5 — Series of 1864.] 
Tax on salaries increased to five per centum. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, August 11, 1864. 
The following circular issued by the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue, is communicated for the information and guidance of the 
disbursiug officers of the Ordnance Department : 

Treasury Department, 
Office of Internal Revenue, 

Washington, July 1, 1864. 

By the 123d section of the internal-revenue act of June 30, 1864, the rate of tax upon 



74 

salaries for service rendered after tbat date is fixed at five per centum. The particular 
atteution of paymasters and disbursing oliicers is requested to the following 

REGULATIONS. 

1. The duty of five per centum is to be withheld from all salaries of officers or pay- 
ments for services to persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service 
of the United States, including Senators, Representatives, and Delegates in Congress, 
■when exceeding the rate of six hundred dollars per annum. 

2. Where persons are transiently employed, the tax will be computed on a basis of 
three hundred working-days in each year. In such cases, the amount of two dollars 
per day will consequently be exempt from taxation. 

3. Each commissioned officer in the army receives from a paymaster compensation 
at a rate exceeding six hundred dollars ; therefore, all payments to commissioned officers 
made by a quartermaster, or disbursing agent other'than a paymaster, will be in excess 
of the rate of six hundred dollars per annum, and the duty of five per centum must be 
withheld from such payments. 

4. An accurate return should be made upon Form No. 10, which will be furnished by 
this office, showing the names of the person or persons to whom the payments were 
made, and from whom the tax was withheld, and also the mouth or months for which 
the salaries were due. 

5. This return, in all cases accompanied by payment of the amount of tax, must 
be transmitted to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, at Washington. 

6. If the payment is remitted by certificate of deposit with an assistant treasurer or 
designated depositary of the United States, or with a national bank duly authorized 
to receive such moneys, special care must be exercised to forward the proper certificate 
in accordance with the note upon its margin. 

GEO. D. RAMSAY, 
Brigadier-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 60— Scries of 1864.] 
Taxes for the months of July and August, 1864. 

Ordnance-Offioe, War Deparment, 

Washington, November 17, 1864. 
On the recommendation of the accounting officer, all disbursing 
officers of this Department who, not being aware at the time of the 
change in the law, collected only 3 per cent, tax trom their employes in 
the months of July and August, 1864, are hereby informed that the 
additional 2, per cent, should be collected from all hired persons ac- 
countable who are still in their employ, as otherwise they will be held 
personally responsible for the dehcieucy on tUe settlement of their ac- 
counts. 

Each officer concerned will report his compliance with this circular to 
the Auditor, and state in what month's accounts the correction will be 
found. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brigadier- General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 10— Series of 1866.] 
Requiring rendition of iceeMy statements of funds. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, May 19, 1866. 

Disbursing officers of ordnance will hereafter make and transmit to 

this office, every Saturday, a statement of the public funds for which 

they aie accountable, in which they will designate the sum they may 

have in their personal possession, and how much on deposit, and the 



names of the particular depositories in which all or any portion of the 
same may be deposited. These weekly statements are to be in addition 
to the detailed statements of funds which are required to accompany 
monthlv cash-accounts, 

A. B. DYEE, 
Brevet Major-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 12— Series of 1866.] 

Instructions relative to deposit of public funds. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, June 7, 1866. 

In pursuance of instructions from the Secretary of War, all disburs- 
ing officers of the Ordnance Department will, from and after the receipt 
of these instructions, deposit the public funds for which they are ac- 
countable only with assistant treasurers of the United States and 
special Government deiwsitories, lists of which will be furnished to 
them from this office. 

Funds received for sales of public property, except the ordinary sales 
of subsistence-stores, will, without unnecessary delay, be deposited in 
the nearest of said depositories to the credit of the Treasurer of the 
United States, on account of the appropriations to which they belong", 
unless they receive special instructions on the subject from this office. 

No transfer of funds from one depository to another will be made 
without special authority from the Secretary of War. In cases where 
there may be no assistant treasurer or special depository near the dis- 
bursing officer, and a place of deposit is needed, the fact will be re- 
ported to this office, and application made for leave to deposit in a 
national bank, naming the bank in which it is desirable to deposit. 

Public funds will remain in the depository until needed for disburse- 
ment to public creditors, and the disbursements will be made of the 
identical funds received from the depository. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brevet Major-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 16— Series of 1866.1 
[Eepublishment of General Orders No. 39. — Exhibit L, p. 37.] 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 20— Series of 1866.] 
Funds in the personal possession of disbursing officers of ordnance. 

Ordnanoe-Office, War Department, 

Washington, August 22, 1866. 
Disbursing officers of the Ordnance Department will not keep in their 
personal possession any more money than is necessary to pay such 
accounts as cannot readily be paid with checks, as is required by law. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brevet Major- General, Chief of Ordnance. 



76 
Exhibit P. — Continued. 

[Circular No. 2'2— Series of 1866.] 

In relation to paying public creditors hy clieclcs on public depositories. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, September 12, 1866. 

Some of the disbursing officers of the Ordnance Department seeming 
to be under the impression that they were under the necessity of paying 
public creditors with money instead of by checks on depositories, the 
following section of an act of Congress approved March 3, 1857, is pub- 
lished for their information and governmeut. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brevet Major-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Be it etiacfed hy the Senate and House of Ecpresentativcs of the United States of America in 
Congress assemhied, Tliat the act to provide for the better organization of the Treasury, 
and for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public revenue, 
approved August sixth, eighteen hundred aud forty-six, be, and the same is hereby, so 
amended that each and every disbursing officer or agent of the United States having 
any money of the United States entrusted to him for disbursement shall be, aud he is 
hereby, required to deposit the same with the Treasurer of the United States, or with 
some one of the assistant treasurers or public depositaries, and draw for the same 
only in favor of the persons to whom payment is to be made in pursuance of law and 
instructions; except wlieu payments are to be made in sums under twenty dollars, in 
which cases such disbursing agent may check in his owu uame, stating that it is to 
pay small claims. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 25 — Series of 1666.] 
Refunding deposits by disbursing officers. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, October 15, 1866. 
Disbursing officers of the Ordnance Department depositing public 
funds with the assistant treasurers or depositories to the credit of the 
Treasurer United States for refundment into the Treasury, are required, 
in all cases, to immediately forward the ''' originaV^ certificate of de- 
posit to the Treasury Department through this office, and the officers' 
accounts-current for the month in which the deposit is made will ex- 
hibit the fact, and show the date of transmittal of the certificate to the 
Ordnance-Office. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brevet Major-General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 19— Series of 1867.] 
Relative to deposit of public funds. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, October 9, 1867. 
The following instructions from the Secretary of War, in relation to 
public funds, are communicated to the officers and agents of the Ord- 



11 

nance Department, and tbey are directed strictly to comply with the 
orders and regulations which have heretofore been published and are 
in force on this subject : 

Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washiiiffton, October 5, 1367. 
To the Chief of Ordnance, 

Washington, D. C: 
Sir : The attention of the Secretary of War having been called, to the unnecessary 
violations of law by disbursing officers, in failing to place in the proper depositories, 
designated for the deposit and safe-keeping of Government funds, the funds for which 
they are responsible, he directs that the attention of disbnrsiug departments be called 
to the matter, with a view to enforcing a strict compliance with the orders and regu- 
lations on this subject. You are therefore requested to take such measures as will se- 
cure such compliance on the part of the disbursing officers of your department. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 

The reception of this circular will be specially acknowledged ; and if 
there be circumstances which prevent any officer from complying with 
the law and orders relative to deposit of public funds, such circum- 
stances will be reported on the weekly statement of funds. 

A. B. DYEK, 
Brevet Major- General, Chief of Ordnance. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 3— Series of 1868.1 
Relative to puhlie funds. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, February 4, 1868. 
The following circular is published for the information of all disburs- 
ing officers or agents charged with the disbursement of public funds 
under the control of the Ordnance Department. 

A. B. DYEE, 
Brevet Major- General, Chief of Ordnance. 

Treasury Department, 

January 18, 1868. 

By virtue of the first section of an act of Congress approved June 14, 1866, entitled 
" An act to regulate and secure the safe-keeping of public money intrusted to disburs- 
ing officers of the United States, " special authority is hereby given to each of such disburs- 
ing officers or agents of the War Department as tJie Secretary of War may designate to with- 
draw by check, payable to himself or bearer, from the Treasurer, an assistant-treas- 
urer, a United States depositary, or national bank depository of the United States, 
specially designated for the use of the War Department under the act of June 14, 1866, 
the amount of his regular monthly pay-rolls or vouchers for wages or services rejidered 
not to exceed five days in advance of the regular date when payment of said pay-rolls 
or vouchers is due ; and he is hereby required to deposit any balance of such amount 
remaining in his hands unpaid after the lapse of five days from the regular date when 
such payment is due ; also to draw, at any time, as above, a sum not exceeding three 
hundred dollars to pay small claims, not exceeding twenty dollars each, when he has 
no funds in his hands for that purpose, indorsing on the check that it is for the purpose 
of paying small claims. 

And further authority is hereby given to each of such disbursing officers or agents of the 
War Department as the Secretary of War may designate, when stationed on the extreme 
frontier, or at places far remote from the Treasurer, an assistant treasurer, designated 
depositary, or national bank depository of the United States, specially designated for 
the use of the War Department under the act of June 14, 1866, to keep in his offlce- 
safe, or personal possession, at his own risk, such moneys as may be intrusted to him 
for disbursement. 

All officers so authorized shall render a weekly statement of the balance in their 



78 



hands to the Treasurer of the United States. This balance shall be verified by a cer- 
tificate of the commanding officer of the post or detachment after actual count of the 
money by said commanding officer. But when a disbursing officer, in the performance 
of his official duties, shall be traveling in charge of public funds, with no commanding 
officer of post or detachment present, he shall append to tbe weekly statement his own 
certificate of the fact that no such commander is available to verify and certify his 
statement. 

H. Mcculloch, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



Exhibit P — Coutinned. 

[Circular No. 9— Series of 1868.] 

Special statements of operations during the fiscal year 18G7-'G8. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington^ D. C, June 1, 1868. 

In order to enable this office to prepare its annnal report to the Sec- 
retary of War, it is necessary to possess the information called for by 
the following returns, which must be made up and transmitted to this 
office on or before the 1st of August, 18G8 : 

1st. From officers in command of posts, or on special duty, directing 
disbursements — a statement of the public moneys received, expended, 
and remaining on hand for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 18G7, and 
ending June 30, 18G8, made in conformity with the annexed blank form, 
No. 2. 

2d. At all arsenals where the annual estimate required by paragraph 
29, Ordnance Kegulations of 1852, has not yet been furnished, it will be 
prepared and transmitted to this office without delay. 

A. B. DYER, 
Brevet Major- General, Chief of Ordnance. 



No. 2. 

Statement oj funds received aad expended at (or by) 

fiscalyear ending June 30, 18G8. 



during the 



RECEIPTS. 

On hand July 1, 1867 

Received from the Treasury 

Received from other officers 

Received from sales of property 

Received from all other sources not before mentioned 

Total •. 

EXPENDITUKES. 

Expended during the year 

Transferred to other officers 

Deposited to credit of Treasurer U. S 

Balance on hand June 30, 1868 

Total 



NOTE. 

Disbnrsiiipt officers on duty in the field, or at temporary stations, will render statement No. 2, 
wbether they have ceased disbursing or not ; but at all .arsenals, depots, and permanent stations, the 
officer in charge will include the transactions of his predecessors, whenever the data are accessible. 



79 
Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 13 — Series of 1870. J 
Eespecting tax on salaries of officers, dtc. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, July 26, 1870, 
The following circular from the acting Commissioner of Internal Rev- 
enue is communicated for the information and guidance of officers of the 
Ordnance Department. 

A. B. DYER, 
Chief of Ordnance, U. iS'. A. 



Treasury Departmknt, Office of Intp:rxal Revexup:, 

Washington, July 'i2, 1870. 

Uuder section 123 of the internal-reveime act of June 30, 1364, as amended, all pay- 
masters and disbursing officers of the United States were required to deduct and with- 
hold a tax of 5 per centum from the salaries of all officers, or payments for services to 
persons in the civil, military, naval, or other employment or service of the United 
States, including Senators and Representatives and Delegates in Congress on the ex- 
cess of such salaries or payments above the rate of .$1,000 per annum. It is declared 
in section 17 of an act entitled "An act to reduce internal taxes, and for othet pur- 
poses," approved July 14, 1870, that said section 123 shall be construed to impose the 
taxes therein mentioned to the 1st of August, 1870, and no longer. All officers and 
employ6s of the United States will be paid the entii-e amount of their salary or com- 
pensation for services rendered after that date, without deduction on account of inter- 
nal-revenue tax, but will be required to account for the same in their annual -income 
returns. The usual tax will be withheld on all salaries and compensation accrued or 
earned prior to August 1, 1870, as heretofore, as the recent act relieved only salaries 
and compensatiou accruing after that date. 

J. W. DOUGLASS, 
Acting Commissiouer. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 16— Series of 1870.] 
Belative to ajypropriations and expenditures. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, August 17, 1870. 
The following circular is published for the information and govern- 
ment of officers of the Ordnance Department : 

Treasury Department, First Comptroller's Office, 

Washington, August 8, 1870. 

By the provisions of the fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the general-appropriation 
act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1871, appropriations made for the current fiscal year 
can be expended only for the service of the year — that is, for debts and liabilities accru- 
ing within the year — and former appropriations can be used only in payment of debts 
and liabilities accrued, and in the fulfillment of contracts properly made prior to the 
Ist day of July, 1870. These provisions do not apply to appropriations known as per- 
manent or indefinite, nor to those to which Congress has given a longer duration of 
law. 

Disbursing officers are hereby instructed to observe these provisions of law strictly. 
And they are also directed to render separate accounts of disbursements made on ac- 
count of debts and liabilities accrued and contracts made prior to July 1, 1870 ; and 
separate accounts of payments made on account of the service of the current fiscal 
year. 

They will be careful, also, not to use moneys appropriated for former years for the 
service of the current year. 

K. W. TAYLEE, 

ConqytroUer. 



8o 
The sections referred to are as follows : 

Sec. 5. And he if further enacted, That all balances of ai)propriation8 contained in the 
annnalappropriation bills and made specifically for the service of any fiscal year, and 
remaining unexpended at the expiration of snch fiscal year, shall only be applied to 
the payment of expenses properly incurred dming that year, or to the fnlfiUment of 
contracts properly made within that year ; and snch balances not needed for the said 
purposes shall be carried to the the surplus fund : Provided, That this section shall not 
apply to appropriations known as permanent or indefinite appropriations. 

Sec. 7. And be it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any Department of 
the Government to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations 
made by Congress for that fiscal year, or to involve the Government iu any contract 
for the future payment of money in excess of such appropriation. 

The only appropriations which can be lawfully expended by this De- 
partment during the current fiscal year are as follows, viz : 

Repairs, &c., at Springfield armory $11, 400 00 

Rock Island arsenal 360,000 00 

Allegheny arsenal 7, 612 .^i5 

Benicia arsenal 3, 000 00 

Columbus arsenal 5, 000 00 

Fort Monroe arsenal 1, 000 00 

Indianapolis arsenal 2, 000 00 

Leavenworth arsenal , 1, 000 00 

San Antonio arsenal 500 00 

Vancouver arsenal ."300 00 

Watervliet arsenal 12,900 00 

Watertown arsenal 3,000 00 

Contingencies of arsenals 5, 000 00 

Ordnance-service 150,000 00 

And balance of the permanent appropriation for " Arming and equip- 
ping the militia," and so much of the money derived from the sales of 
ordnance and ordnance-stores during the current fiscal year as may be 
required to break up, prepare for sale, and transport to place of sale, 
&c., the ordnance and ordnance-stores referred toiu the joint resolution 
approved July 20, 18G8. 

The expenditures at each i^ost must not exceed the amount allotted 
to that post. 

The instructions of the Comptroller of the Treasury relative to dis- 
bursements of former appropriations, and the rendition of two sets of 
cash-accounts, will be strictly complied with. 

Officers in forwarding estimates of funds will state whether the amount 
asked for is for the payment of expenses incurred or contracts made 
prior to July 1, 1870, or for the service of the current fiscal year. Sep- 
arate estimates will be required. Tlie receipt of this circular will be 



acknowledged by special letter. 



A. B. DYER, 
CJiief of Ordnance, U. S. A. 



Exhibit P— Continued. 

[Circular No. 19— Series of 1871.] 
Presenting the manner of drawing checks by disbursing officers. 

Ordnance Office, War Department, 

Washington, November 7, 1871. 
The following order is published for the information of disbursing of- 
ficers of the Ordnance Department : 

[General Orders No. 62.] 

War Depaktment, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, October 21, 1871. 
The following circular from the Treasury Department, prescribing the manner of 



drawing certain United States disbursing officers' checks, is publislied for the informa- 
tion of all concerned : 

" Treasury Department, October 10, 1871. 

"All disbursing officers or agents of the United States (except pension-agents) 
drawing checks on moneys deposited to their officaal credit with the Treasurer of the 
United States, any of the assistant treasurers, and United States depositaries, irt/ai"Of 
of themselves or bearer, or in favor of any person other than a public credifov, must state on 
the face or back of the check the object or purpose to which the avails are to be ap- 
plied. Pension-agents drawing such checks must furnish a list containing the names of 
the persons to whom payment is to be made, and the amounts due to each. 

" GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 

" Secretary of the Trcasnry." 
By order of the Secretary of War ; 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 



Attention, in connection with tlie above, is called to Circular Xo. 22 
series of 1866, from this office. 

A. B. DYER, 
CMef of Ordnance, United iStates Ann^. 



Exhibit P — Continued. 

[Circular No. 21— Series of 1871.] 
Relative to issue of checJcs against official deposits. 

Ordnance-Office, War Department, 

Washington, November 23, 1871. 
Disbursing officers of the Ordnance Department will hereafter issue 
no checks against their official deposits except in pursuance of law and 
Treasury regulations, as follows : 

1. For payment of authorized vouchers. 

2. For transfer of credits from one to another disbursing officer, in 
the same depository. 

3. To draw money for payment of employes. 

4. In exchange for money when the deposit is at a distaut"'point, and 
the money heeded for present public disbursement. 

In all cases a brief statement on the face or back of the checks should 
show the purpose for which they were issued. 

The foregoing has the concurrence and authority of the Secretary[of 
the Treasury, and must be strictlv observed. 

A.B. DYEE, 
Chief of Ordnance, United States Army. 



Exhibit P— Continued. 

[Circular No. 23— Series of 1871.] 
Advances from distinct bureaus to be Icept separate at public depositories. 
Ordnance-Office, War Depart3ient, 

Washington, December 22, 1871. 
The following circular is published for the information of officers of 
the Ordnance Department. 

A. B. DYER. 
Chief of Ordnance, United States Armif. 
6 H E 



[Circular.] 

Wai: Di:i>ai:t.mknt, AuJCTANr-GENEnAL's Ofi'ick, 

Washington, December ID, 1871. 

The followiiifi circular, issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, is published for the 
iufonuation and jjuidance of those concerned: 

"Whenever a United States disbiusiuoj oflicer, serving in two distinct capacities, 
and having moneys advanced to him from two distinct bureaus, deposits his funds 
with ihe Treasurer of the United States, an assistaut treasurer, or Uuited States de- 
positary, separate accounts should be kept of such moneys, and the balance to the 
credit of each should be reported separately on the weekly lists of disbursiug officers' 
balances. 

"These instructions are intended to apply more particularly to officers of the Quar- 
termaster's branch of the War Department serving as commissaries aud vice verso." 

Bv order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutaiit-Geiicriil. 



Exhibit r — CoiUimied. 

[Circular No. 2— Series of 1872.J 

[Repiiblisliment of ExMhit £7, General Orders No. 1, pp. 12. 13, (lud 14, 
relative to iiistruetio)is to iJinhursiny officers. 



Exhibit Q. 

[Circular.] 

Treasury Departiwent, 
Second Comptroller's Office, 

June 20, 1863. 

1. The circulars of August 4, 1802, and of April 10, 1863, are hereby- 
superseded, and the following is adopted and promulgated for the in- 
formation of all disbursing officers of the War Department, and also of 
the Indian and Pension branches of the Interior Department : 

2. The act of Congress approved July 17, 1802, entitled "An act to 
provide for the more prompt settlement of the accounts of disbursing 
officers," directs as follows : 

"That from and after the passage of this act, any officer or agent of the Uuited 
States who shall receive public money which he is not authorized to retain as salary, 
pay, or emoluments, shall I'ender his accounts monthly instead of quarterly as hereto- 
fore ; and such accounts, with the vouchers necessary to the correct and prompt settle- 
ment thereof, shall be rendered direct to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury, 
and be mailed or otherwise forwarded to its proper address within ten days after the 
expiration of each successive month. And in case of the non-receipt at the Treasury 
of any accounts within a reasonable and i)roper time thereafter, the officer whose ac- 
counts are in default shall be required to furnish satisfactory evidence of having com- 
plied with the provisions of this act ; and for any default on his part the delinquent 
officer shall be deemed a defaulter, and be subject to all the penalties prescribed by 
the sixteenth section of the act of August fi, 1846, to provide for the better organiza- 
tion of the Treasury, and for the collection, transfer, safe-keei)ing, and disbursement 
of the public revenue : Frovided, That the Secretary of the Treasury may, if in his 
opinion the circumstances of the case justify and require it, extend the time herein- 
before prescribed for the rendition of accounts : And provided further, That nothing 
herein contained shall be construed to restrain the heads of any of the Departments 
from requiring such other returns or reports from the officer or agent, subject to the 
control of such heads of Departments as the public interest may require." 

3. The accounts and vouchers herein required are such only as relate 
to the receipt and disbursement of public money, and not to pi'operty 



83 

or other returus, which will be rendered hereafter as heretofore, in con- 
formity with regulations prescribed by proper authority. 

4, All officers, agents, or other persons, who receive public money 
from any source whatever other than the United States Treasury, or a 
disbursing officer, are required to deposit the same in the Treasury, or 
in some depository of the United States, and include the receipt and 
imyment thereof in their money accounts. 

5. Disbursing officers or agents who, from whatever cause, cease to be 
such, are required immediately thereafter to render their fiinal accounts, 
with the vouchers, to the proper accounting officer of the Treasury. 

(). The Secretary of the Treasury further determines that it shall be 
the duty of the Second and Third Auditors to transmit to the proper 
bureau such accounts and vouchers- as require administrative action as 
soon as possible after they shall be received, and request a i)rompt 
return thereof, with such information and suggestions to the account- 
ing officers as may be pertinent to the settlement of such accounts at 
the Treasury. 

7. The Second, Third, and Fourth Auditors of the Treasury will 
report to this office monthly the name of each officer or agent who has 
omitted to render his accounts as required by the act of 18G2, herein 
published. 

The report will state the name and official designation of the officer 
or agent, and the time at which his account ought, according to the law, 
to have been rendered. 

8. UndeT instruction, this report will bo transmitted without delay, 
by the head of this office, to the Secretary of tlie Treasury, and dupli- 
cates of them at the same time to the head of the Department to which 
the ofi'euding officer or agent is responsible. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Second Comptroller. 
Approved : S. P. Chase, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 



Second Comptroller's Office, 

March 30, 1867. 

The foregoing circular is hereby modified so as to conform to the act - 
of March 2, 1867, which repeals so much of the act of July 17, 1862, as 
requires the accounts and vouchers of disbursing officers to be sent 
direct to the respective Auditors, and provides that " all such accounts 
and vouchers shall hereafter be sent to the bureau to which they per- 
tain, and after examination there, they shall be passed to the proper 
accounting officer of the Treasury for settlement." 

These officers will continue to send to the proper Auditors monthly 
reports of internal revenue withheld, and hereafter they will further 
be required to send a copy of the account-current, including the ab- 
stract of moneys transferred, (known in the Quartermaster's Department 
as abstract B b,) where such abstracts are used, to the proper Auditor, 
at the same time that they send their accounts and vouchers to the 
bureau to which they pertain. 

J. M. BliODHEAD, 

Gom])troUer. 



84 

Exhibit Q — Continued. 

Circular to dUhursing officers relating to vouchers and sul'VOiichers. 

Treasury Department, 
Second Comptroller's Office, 

October 11, 1805. 
l.st. Disbursing officers will be required to famish the original vouch- 
ers or sub-vouchers in their accounts, unless they have been lost or de- 
stroyed, or their retention is indispensable to the performance of duty 
by an officer acting under orders. 

2d. When originals cannot be furnished, copies duly certified as true 
by a disinterested officer may be accepted. If no other officer than the 
X^ayor or payee is at the post when payment is made, both must certify 
to that fact, and also to the correctness of the copy. 

3d. Disbursing officers making iiayment on copies of orders, when 
the original is retained by the ofiicer receiving payment, should indorse 
on the original any iiayment they make. 

4th. In case an order is confidential, or several subjects are embraced 
in it, an extract, pertinent to the duties for which payment is made, 
should be taken and used. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, ' 

Comptroller. 



Exhibit (J — Continued. 

[Circular.] 
Requiring cliccls or drafts to he described in receipts. 

Treasury Department, 
Second Comptroller's Office, 

February 1, 1866. 

Sir : As it frequently happens that checks or drafts, drawn by dis- 
bursing officers on funds placed to their credit with assistant treasurers 
or other depositaries of the United States, and given for the payment of 
public stores and services, are ultimately returned upon the Treasury 
for payment, in consequence of the withdrawal or transfer of such funds 
before presentation of checks or drafts ; and the accounting officers of 
the Treasury having very limited means for determining their genuine- 
ness, or of ascertaining and identifying the stores or services for which 
they were given — 

it is directed that, hereafter, disbursing officers of the Quartermaster's, 
Commissary, or Pay Departments, in making payment for public stores 
or services by checks or drafts drawn upon funds placed to their credit 
with assistant treasurers or other depositaries of the United States, 
shall enter in the form of, or note upon, the receipt taken for such pay- 
ment, the number, date, and amount of such check or draft given in pay- 
ment, and designate the assistant treasurer or depositary drawn upon. 

All disbursing officers should properly charge moneys deposited to 
their credit with banks or other depositories, and carefully credit any 
sums drawn for at the time of making checks or drafts. 

The true state of their accounts will thus always be known to them; 
and, limiting the drafts, as they should, to the amount shown by their 
cash-book to be on deposit after [)ayment of any previous drafts, (if any 



85 

have been drawn,) there will always remain on deposit funds to meet 
the drafts drawn against them. 

Thus the difficulties growing out of non-payment of drafts when pre- 
sented, for want of funds, will be avoided. 

J. M. BEODHEAD, 

Comptroller 



Exhibit Q — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

Treasury Department, 
SeOond Comptroller's Office, 

31mj 12, 18GS. 
All officers, agents, or other persons receiving money that they are 
not authorized to retain as salary, except money received from the 
Treasury, or from disbursing officers, or from sales of subsistence, mili- 
tary stores, and other supplies, (see section 3, act September 28, 1850, 9 
Statutes, 507,) are required to dejiosit tbe same in some Government de- 
pository, and to forward the original certificate of deposit to the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury, that a requisition may be issued to carry it to 
their credit on the books of the Treasury Department ; and they are 
further required to take up tbe same on their accounts-current for the 
month or quarter iu which the money was received. 

No credit can be allowed to auy disbursing officer or agent for money 
expended under a head of appropriation, exceeding the amount in his 
bauds under that head, when there is no money in tlie Treasury to the 
credit of such appropriation at the time of the settlement of his account, 
as a transfer in the settlement cannot then be made. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Com2)troUer. 



Exhibit Q — Continued. 

[Circular.] 

Treasury Departsient, 
Second Comptroller's Office, 

Fehrnarij 9, 1869. 
Tiie attention of all disbursing officers and agents of the United 
States, esi)ecially of those on the Pacitic coast, whose accounts are set- 
tled through the Second, Third, and Fourth Auditors' Offices, is called 
to the provisions of the last clause of the twenty-first section of the act 
of August 6, 1810, entitled "An act to provide for the better organiza- 
tion of the Treasury, and for the collection, safe-keeping, transfer, and 
disbursement of the public revenue," 1 9 Stat., 65,) which is as follows : 

No ofiScer of the Uuitecl States shall, either directly or indirectly, sell or dispose to 
any person or persons, or corporations, whatsoever, for a premium, any Treasury note, 
draft, warrant, or other public security, not his private property, or sell or dispose of 
the avails or ])roceeds of such note, draft, warrant, or security, in his hands for dis- 
bursement, without maliing return of such premium, and accounting therefor by 
charging the same in his accounts to the credit of the United States; and any officer 
violating this section shall be forthwith dismissed from otfice. 

These provisions of the act are construed to apply to sales of coin, or 
drafts payable in coin, for a premium in " lawful money" of the United. 



86 

States, or bank-notes used as currency ; and such preuiiuui is held to 
be " public money " within the intent and meaning of the act of Con- 
gress approved June 14, 1866, entitled " An act to regulate and secure 
the safe-keeping of public money intrusted to disbursing officers of the 
United States." (14 Stat., 64.) 

Therefore, all such disbursing officers and agents of the United 
States who shall receive coin, or drafts payable in coin, for disburse- 
ment, are instructed to render separate abstracts of the amounts so re- 
ceived and disbursed by them ; and in transferring specie funds and 
making payments, the receipts therefor should show that they were 
made in coin. And in all cases where coin, or a draft payable in coin, 
has been received and sold, or exchanged for " lawful money," or bank- 
notes used as currency, at a premium, disbursing officers and agents 
are required, in making up their accounts for rendition and settlement 
at the Treasury, to charge themselves with the full amount of the 
premium on all such sales, and account for the same as " public money " 
received. 

J. M. BROUHEAD, 

CoDiptroIhr. 



Exhibit Q— Continued. 

[Circular No. 3.] 

Treasury Department, 

Secoind Auditor's Office, 

May 3, 1861). 
The following instructions from the Second Comptroller are communi- 
cated to you for your guidance. 
Yerv respectfullv, 

E. B. FRENCH, 

Second Auditor. 



Six'OND Comptkoi.i.kk's Office, 

April 28, 18G9. 

Insiritcliou'i in reriurd to ihe cxecuiion of the riKolntion of Coiif/ress, approved the lOlh iristanfj 
entitled "A resolution for the protection of soldiers and their heirs.^' 

The first section of this resolution enacts " that the accounting officers of the Treas- 
ury and Pay Departments, who are charged with the settlement and payment of boun- 
ties due to soldiers or their heirs, be, and they are hereby, directed to pay, or cause to 
be paid, the sums found due to the said soldiers or their heirs, in person, or by trans- 
mitting the amount direct to them in a draft or drafts, payable to his, her, or their 
order, or through the Freedmen's Bureau, or State agents appointed especially for that 
purpose, or governors of national asylums, or pension-agent of the district where he, 
she, or they may reside ; and not to any claim-ageut or upon any power of attorney, 
transfer, or assignment whatever." 

Thus the bill was introduced and first passed the Senate, but in the House an addi- 
tional section (section :5) was added, materially aifectiug the first, aud in that form the 
bill became a law. 

This additional section enacts "that the fees allowed by law to attorneys or agents 
shall be reserved by the Pay Department or said pension-agent, aud paid to said agent 
or attorney when such fees are due for services rendered in procuring such bounty or 
bounties, and not otherwise." 

In the first place it will be o1)served that the law is limited to soldiers as distinguished 
from officers and sailors, but when any bounty is due either of the latter for services 
as soldiers, then the law applies. There are technical reasons, too, for considering the law 
applicable only to bounties ; but iu view of the great additional labor aud expense to 
claimants, as well as to the Government, which the issuing of two certificates iu each 
case where other credits as well as bounty are due would occasion, I think the law in 
such cases may be considered applicable to all. 



. ^7 

It is for services, uot advances, that a fee may be withheld. 

The anioniit of tees agreed npou between agents and claimants will be allowed when 
not in excess of the amount ])rescribed by the 2d section, act of July 26, 1866, and the 
joint resolution of March 29, 18(57, and circular letter of this office dated April 25, 1867, 
of which a copy is hereto appended. In foreign cases, the representatives, either dip- 
lomatic or consular, of other governments, resident in this country, may be recognized 
as State agents within the meaning of this resolution, and as they can have no pecu- 
niary interest in-the claims, the object of the law will be obtained by making payment 
to them as heretofore. 

Under an arrangement with the Paymaster-General, a paymaster will be detailed in 
this city to pay these certificates, who will, of course, be held responsible for the sums 
ordered to be withheld. The Second Auditor should immediately instruct attorneys 
to forward to him duplicate receipts of the claimants for the amounts due, with the 
amount agreed to be paid the agent th-ereiu stated, and also the affidavit of the attor- 
ney as to the amouut of the fee when any amount was fixed by agreement. 

In making the settlement, the siguatures to these receipts and to the original appli- 
cation should be compared, and the addresses of the elaiuiant and attorney should be 
stated distinctly in the certificate. The amount of the fee for the bounty and other credits 
should be determined by the accounting officers, and stated in the margin of the cer- 
tificate iu red ink, as is now done in the case of internal-revenue tax to be deducted 

After settlement the certificates and receipts should be sent to the Paymaster-Gen-" 
eral, who will refer them to the paymaster in the city designated to make the payment, 
and the latter will then send a check for the fee to the attornej', and one for the re- 
mainder payable to the claimant, directly to him or to the agent mentioned in the res- 
olution. 

Colored claims adjustable under the joint resolution of March 29, 1887, are not 
affected bv the resolution of April 10, 18'o'J. 

.1. M. BRODHEAD. 

Comptrolley, 

Treasihy Dkpakt.mkxi, 

Second Comptuoli.ki'.'s Oep'ICe, 

April 25, 1867. 

Upon consultation with the Auditors whose work is subject to the revision of this 
office, the following has been adopted as the scale of fees to lie allowed claim-agents 
or attorneys for the collection of back pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due 
from the United States to persons who are or have been officers or enlisted men of the 
Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States, or their heirs, exceitt in cases of 
colored claimants, for the collection of whose claims the amount of fees is jirescribed 
in section two, act of July 26, 1866, and joint resolution No. 25, approved March 29, 
1867, viz : 

For the preparation and prosecution of claims for, and the collection and remittance 
of, all sums uot exceeding two hundred dollars, 10 per centum; for all sums exceeding 
two hundred dollars and less than eight hundred dollars, 10 per centum on the first 
two hundred dollars, and 5 per centum on the remainder thereof; and for all sums of 
eright hundred dollars and upward, fifty dollars ; and said fees shall include all expenses 
incident to the collection of said claims, excispt the expense of the necessary notarial 
or other acknowledgments, which shall be defrayed by the claimant; and any agent 
or attorney who shall charge, directly or indirectly, in any case, a greater sum for his 
services in preparing and prosecuting said claims, and collecting and remitting the 
amouut due, shall be deemed guilty of malpractice, and upon satisfactory evidence of 
the fact of such overcharge being presented to the Second, Third, or Fourth Auditor, 
or to the Second Comptroller, said agent or attorney shall be suspended from the fur- 
ther prosecution of claims of any kind in or through any or either of the above-named 
offices. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

CompiroUer. 



Exhibit Q — Contiuued. 

lustnictions concerning public money intrusted to, and the checls of United 
States disbursing officers. 

Treasury Department, 

November 23, 1869. 

All public money advanced to disbiirsiug officers of the United States 
must be deposited immediately, to their respective credits, with either 



88 

the United States Treasurer, some assistant treasurer, or designated 
depositary other than a national bank depository, nearest or most con- 
venient; or, by direction of the Secretary of the Treasury, with a 
national bank depository, except : 

(1.) Each disbursing officer of the War Department specially author- 
ized by the Secretary ef War, when stationed on the extreme frontier 
or at places far remote from such depositaries, may keep, at his owu 
risk, such moneys as may be intrusted him for disbursement. 

(2.) Any oflicer receiving money remitted to him upon specific esti- 
mates, will at once disburse the same accordingly, without waiting to 
place it in a depository, if the payments are due, and he prefers this 
method to that of drawing checks. 

Checks drawn by disbursing officers upon money thus deposited must 
be in favor of the person, by name, to whom payment is to be made, 
or in favor of such person, by name, or bearer, with these exceptions : 

[A.] Any disbursing officer may draw checks in favor of himself or 
bearer for such amounts as may be necessary [1] to pay sums under 
$20, in which case he will state in the checks thus drawn that they 
are drawn to paysmall c]ain)s; [2J topay(fl) fixed salariesdueat acertain 
period he may withdraw the necessary amount by checks two days 
before the salaries are to be paid; {b) to make payments at a distance 
from a depository he may withdraw the necessary- amount by check. 
In each case [a and b,) however, before the check shall be paid, a list, 
officially signed by such officer, containing the names of the parties, 
the sum payable to each from the i)roceeds of sucli checks, and the 
amount thereof, shall be ])lac'ed with the officer on whom the check is 
drawn. 

[B.] Any disbursing officer of the War Department specially desig- 
nated by the Secretary of War may also draw by checks payable to 
himself or bearer the amount of his regular monthly pay-roll or vouchers, 
not to exceed five days before the regular date when iJayment of such 
l)ay-rolls or vouchers is due. 

Public depositaries are not required to ])ay checks of disbursing 
officers made payable in the alternative — to any i)erson or his order. 

Checks will not be returned to the drawer after their payment, but 
the depositary with whom the account is kept, shall furnish the officer 
with a statement of his deposit-account monthly, and not ofteuer, unless 
in special cases. 

No allowance will be made to any disbursing officer for expenses 
charged for collecting money on checks. 

In case of the death, resignation, or remoxal of any disbursing officer, 
checks previously drawn by hiiu will be paid from the funds at his 
credit, unless said checks have been drawn more than four months 
before the presentation thereof, or reasons exist for suspecting fraud. 

Each disbursing officer is required, when first opening a disbursing 
account, to furnish his official signatuie to the officer on whom the 
checks are drawn before drawing such checks. 

No. . 

Office of the Uxitep States 
Assistant Tkeasurer or Depositary, 

,18 . 

Recehel of , dollais, eonsistiiifiof , to be placed to his credit 

as , and subject only to his check in that official capacity. 

U. S. Assistant Treasurer or Depositary. 



89 

A receipt of this form, iu addition to a book entry, shall be given 
for every deposit made by a disbursing officer, which shall show, besides 
its serial number and the place and date of issue, the character of the 
funds, i. €., whether coin or currency ; and if the credit is made by a 
disbursing officer's check, transferring funds to another disbursing 
officer, the essential items of tlie check shall be enumerated ; if by a 
Treasury draft, like items shall be given, including the warrant number. 
The title of each officer shall be expressed, and the title of the dis- 
bursing account shall also show for what branch of the public service 
the account is kept. 

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 

See act of August G, 1846 ; Treasury Regulations, May 27, 1857. 
See act of March 3, 1857 ; Treasury Regulations, November 10, 1886. 
See act of June 14, 1866 ; Treasury Regulations, January 18, 1868. 



. Exhibit Q— Continued. 
1872. 
Independent Treasury circular Xo. 1. 

[This circular is in Exliibit K,pp. 12, 13, and 14, dated January 9, 1872, 
as instructions relative to pidMc moneys and official checlcs of United States 
disbursing officers.] 

Exhibit Q — Continued. 

1872. 

Department Xo. 57. — Warrant Division No. 2. 

ArrRorEiATiON circular. 

Treasury Department, 

Washington^ D. C, June 1, 1872. 
The attention of disbursing officers, and others having public moneys 
or accounts under their control, is particularly directed to the following 
provisions of "An act making appropriations for the legislative, execu- 
tive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the year ending the 
thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and seventy-one," approved July 12, 
1870, and the regulations for carrying the same into ettect: 

Sec. 5. And he it farther enacted, That all balancesof appropriations contained in the 
annual appropriation bills, and made specifically for the service of any fiscal year, and 
remaining unexpended at the expiration of such fiscal year, shall only be applied to 
the paymentjof expenses properly incurred during that year, or to the fulfillment of con- 
tracts properly made within that year ; and such balances not needed for the said pur- 
poses shall be carried to the surplus-fund : Provided, That this section shall not apply 
to appropriations known as permanent or indefinite approi^riations. 

# # * * # ^ * 

Sec. 7. And he it further enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any Department of 
the Government to expend in any one fiscal year any sura iu excess of appropriations 
made by Congress for that fiscal year, or to involve the Government in any contract 
for the future payment of money in excess of such appropriations. — (16 Statutes, 251.) 

To comply properly with these provisions of law, it fs necessary that 
moneys and accounts pertaining to one fiscal year shall not be blended 
with those belonging to another. 

Accounts for the quarter ending June 30 must embrace all compensa- 



90 

tion eiinied and all expenses incurred up to and including- that date, so 
that no charges lor services performed, or articles purchased prior to 
the 1st of Jnly,^shall appear in subsequent accounts. 

Whe»"e an oflicer is unable to close his account for the 30th of June 
promptly, and at the same time meet all outstanding expenses i)roperly 
chargeable to the appropriations for the preceding year, he will make 
regular supplemental accounts under the old ai)pro|)riation, and will not 
carry the unexi)ended balance into his account with the new. 

Where a contract has been legally made requiring i)aynientout of any 
appropriation of the preceding year, officers are authorized to retain to 
their credit a sullicient amount of the old appropriation to meet the ex- 
penditure when it shall become due under the contract. In all such 
cases a supplemental account must be made as provided in the previous 
paragraph. 

As soon after the Istof July as i)ossible, and after having paid all lia- 
bilities incurred on behalf of the (jovernment during the prcnious year, 
or having made suitable ]»rovisions for their i)ayme!it by retaining a 
sufficient amount on hand or on de[)Osit to their credit, officers should 
deposit to the credit of the Treasurer of the United States the balance 
remaining in their hands or to their cri^dit, either with the Treasurer of 
the United Slates himself, some one of the assistant treasurers, or desig- 
nated or national-bank depositories, who will issue certificates of deposit 
in duplicate therefor, the original of which should be forwarded to the 
Secretary of the Treasury. This certificate should always specifically 
state the appropriation to be credited and the fiscal year for which the 
appropriation was made. 

In making this deposit care should be taken to provide, in the manner 
hereinbefore directed, for any outstiiuding checks which may be unpaid 
at the time. 

Supplemental accounts for expenditures under expired approi)riations 
must be rendered either monthly or quarterly, as the rules of the office 
may require. 

Officers stationed ;it places remote from means of rapid communica- 
tion, and holding public moneys in their personal possession, (which can 
only legally be done by i>ermission of the Secretary of the Treasury,) 
are directed to report to the ])roper controlling otlicer the amount of this 
money belonging to the prior fiscal year, and the Com])troller will direct 
Mdiat disposition shall be made of it, and notify the officer accordingly. 

K.'W. TAYLER, 

First Comptroller. 
J. M. BKODHEAD, 

Second Comptroller. 
W. T. HAINES, 
Commissioner of Customs. 

Appro\ed : 

Ge<j. S. Boutwell, 

Secret aril. 



Exhibit R. 

Treasury 1 )epart:\ii<:nt. 

Second Auditor's Office, 

Jwne29, 1872. 
I hereby certify that it appears from the records of this Office, of which 
I am the legal custodian, that the annexed exhibit, marked A, is the 



91 

origiual Treasury certificate, No. 578480, issued from tliis Office in satis- 
faction of the claim for bounty and back-pay in tlie case of William J. 
Brown, late first sergeant. Company C, Fourth Eegiment, Uuited States. 
Colored Heavy Artillery ; and that the annexed exhibit, marked B, is 
the original voucher, No. 127, of Ijvt. Brig. Gen. G. W. Balloch, filed in 
this Office on the 19th of June, 1871, as the receipt of William J. Brown, 
late first sergeant, Companj^ C, Fourth Regiment, United States Col- 
ored Heavy Artillery, for the amount of the certificate hereto attached. 

E. B. FEENCH, 
Second Auditor United States Treasury. 

Be it known that E. B. French, esq., who certified the foregoing, is now, 
and was at the time of so doing. Second Auditor of the Treasury of the 
United States, and the legal custodian of the records of the Second 
Auditor's Office, and full faith and credit are due his official attesta- 
tions. 

In testimony whereof I, George S. Boutwell, Secretary of the Treas- 
ury of the United States, have hereunto set my hand and caused to be 
affixed the seal of the Treasury Department, at the city of Washington, 
in the District of Columbia, this first day of July, in the year A. D. 
1872. 

GEO. S. BOUTWELL, 
Secretary of the Treasury. 



ExunuT A. 

[Attaobcd to foregoinjr] 
No. 578480. 

Appropriation : Bounty act of July 28, 18(30 $100 00' 

Pay of two and three years' volunteers act 35 08 

June 15, 18G4 135 OS 

Balance due 

Treasury Department, 
Second Auditor's Ofitce. 

February 24, 1871. 
I certify tbat I have examined and adjusted the claim of William J. Brown, dis., 1st 
sergt. Co. C, 4 U. S. C. H. A., and lind there is due him from the Uuited States the 
sum of one hundred and thirty-five dollars and eight cents, being for additional bonnty 
and dift". l>ay, as appears by the account and vouchers herewith transmitted for the 
decision of the Second Comptrolh r of the Treasury thereon. To be paid to Brig. Gen. 
O. 0. Howard, for William J. Brown, of Shelbyville, Kentucky, or his order, by any 
pavmaster of the Army in tlie district of the claimant's residence. 

E. B. FEENCH, 

Second Jiiditor, 
By S. A. KAPP. 

Second Comptroller's Office, 

March 2:i, 1871. 
|;135.08. 

The above claim of one hnudred and thirtv-five dollars and eight cents is admitted.. 

J. M. BKODHEAD, 

Second Comptroller. 

instructions for making receipt. 

The amount will bo filled in, and the receipt must be signed by the person in whose 
favor the certificate is issued, in the presence of two witnesses ; but the paymaster's 
name and date will be filled in by the paymaster at the time of payment. 



92 

Beceipt. 

Received, this tliinl day of May, 1871, from J. L. Hodge, paymaster, one hundred 
and thirty-five dollars and eight cents, iu full of the above. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, ^ ^^ 

Bvt. Briq. Gen. and Chief D. 0., I a 

For Bvt. Maj. Gen. O. O. HOWARD, (^ 

Commissioner. } * 
Witnessed by : 

[Stamped indorsement on foregoing certificate :] Paid by check No. 3,927 on U. S- 
Treasury, May 3, 1«71, $57,649]'^q-. J. L. Hodge, Paymaster, U. S. A. 



Exhibit B. 

[Attached receipt.] 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 9fch day of May, 1871, from Brevet Brigadier- 
Oeueral George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lands, one hundred and thirty-five dollars and eight cents, in full for 
arrears of pay and bounty as per Treasury certificate No. 578430, after deducting- 
attorney's fees for collection. 

$135y0. 

WILLIAM + J. BROWN, 
mark 
Laic Ut Seru't Company C, Aih Ilefft U. S. C. E. A. 
Witness : 
s. g. buhbridge. 
Rob't Gkay. 

statement. 

Number of Treasury certificate, 578480. 

Amount of Treasury certificate $135 03 

Amount of fees 

Notarial fees 

Advances 

Balance paid claimant 135 08 



Exhibit S. 

War Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmex and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, December 2, 1807. 
Hon. JouN M. Brodhead, 

Second Comptroller United States Treasury: 
Sir: On account of the great number of signatures necessary to trans- 
act public business, I hereby authorize Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Bal- 
loch, chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of liefugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, to sign, for and in my name, all Treasury certiticates, 
checks, &c., issued in payment of arrears of pay, bounty, prize-money, 
or other moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, and their heirs, 
under authority of Joint Eesolution of Congress Xo. 25, approved March 
2d, 1807. 

Yerv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWABD, 
Major- General, Commissioner. 



93 

[First indorsement.] 

Respectfnny returned. For tbe reasons stated, and as authorized by 
Gen'l O. O. Howard, payment may be made of the certificates, &c., upon 
the receipt of Gen. " George W. Balloch, for the Commissioner," and 
such receipt will be admitted as a sufficient voucher at the Treasury. 

A copy of this letter and of the indorsement now made must be filed 
with the proper disbursing officer, and the Commissioner will also file a 
copy with his accounts. 

J. M. BEODHEAD, 



Second Comptroller's Office, 

December 3, 1SG7. 



Comptroller. 



[Second indorsement.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Hefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, I). C, December 4, 1807. 
Respectfully referred to Brevet Brig. Gen. G. W. Balloch, chief disburs- 
ing officer, for his information and guidance. 
Bv order of Major-General Howard : 

E. WHITTLESEY, 

A. A. A. General, 
Official copy : 

]\r. C. WILKIXSOX, 
-F/>-.s'^ Lieut. Third Infantry, Aide-de-Camp, 



Exhibit T. 

Treasury Department, Third Auditor's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 7, 1874. 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, United States Army : 

Sir : In reply to your verbal request, I have the honor to inform you 
that your accounts as chief disbursing officer Bureau Eefugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, from October 10, 1871, to June 30, 1872, 
have been audited and stated in this Bureau, sent to Second Comptrol- 
ler for his official action, and returned to this office correct and closed. 
The last settlement made was reported to Second Comptroller July 
25, 1872, and returned to this office September 19, 1872, as " balanced 
and closed." 

I have the honor to be, sir, very respectfully, vours, 

ALLAN EUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 



Exhibit L^. 

Executive Mansion, 
Washington, D. C, March 11, 18G9. 
Hon. E. W. Tayler, 

First Comptroller, Treasury Department : 

Sir: Under authority of the act of January 31, 1823, "concerning 

the disbursement of public money," permission is hereby given that 

needful advances of money be made to disbursing officers in the civil 

service of the Government, who may have given bonds as required by 



94 

law, to sucli military and naval officers as may by law be autliorized to 
disburse the same, and to the bankers of the United States in Loudon, 
as requested iu your letter ot" the blank instant. 
Very respect full v, 

U. S. GRANT. 



Exhibit Y. 

Treasury DErARXMENT, 

First Comptroller's Office, 

October 1), 1873. 
Hon. \Ym. a. Richardson, 

tSecretary of the Treasuyy : 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the reference lo this Oftice of 
the letter of the Secretary of War of the 4th instant, relative to a 
requisition of the War Department for a warrant in favor of James 
Eveleth, "disbursing agent of the Engineer Department," of moneys 
appropriated by act of March 3, 18(53, (17 Stat., 527) for modilicatious 
and repairs of building at corner of Seventeenth and F streets, which 
api)ropriations are in said act i>laced under the general head of "build- 
ings and grounds in and around Washington." 

Prior to the passage of the act of March 2, 18G7, abolishing the oflice 
of Commissioner of Public Puildings, and transferring his duties to the 
Chief Engineer of the Army, the disbursements belonged by law to the 
Commissioner, anxl in the transfer Congress provided that the Chief Engi- 
neer " shall perform all the dnties now required by law of said Commis- 
sioner.'" By the seventh section of the act of March 21), 1867, the Chief En- 
gineer was authorizeil to direct some other ofticer of the Engineer Corps 
to i)erform the duties imposed upon him. These acts contemplated the 
disburseujcnt of moneys by an oflicer of the Engineer Corps, and are 
consistent with the provisions of section 27, act of July 5, 1838, which 
authorized disbursements by engineer officers on public work on which 
they may be engaged. 

1 do not find that jNIr. Eveleth has deposited a bond as disbursing 
officer. 

My opinion is that, under the law, General Babcock is the proper officer 
to disburse the moneys in question, though Mr. Roche, the disbursing 
clerk of the War Department, may properly do it. 
I am, very respectfully, 

R. W. TAYLER. 

Comptroller. 



Exhibit W. 
Xo. 11 11.] Wasliiuf/fon, June 14, 1SG7. 

Treasurer of the United States, Washington : 

Pay to Major General O. O. Howard, or order, fifty-four thousand 
nine hundred and twentveight -^J^j dollars. 
854,928.07. ' ^ J. LEDYARD HODGE, 

Faymafiter, United States Army. 

[Written across the face in red ink :J Paid by, June 17, 18G7, Treasu- 
rer United States. 

[On back:] O. O. Howard, Major-General. George W. Ballock, Bvt. 
Brig. Gen'l and Ch'f D. O. 

[In pencil:] Credited Ballock, June 17, 1807. True. 



95 
Exhibit X. 

War DE^ARTME^"T, 
Bureau Kefugees, Freedmen and Arandoned Lands, 

Wash i in/ton, May oO, 1SG5. 
Brig.-Geu. Eaton, 

Co»imi.ssary General, Uitifcd States Army : 
General : Lieut. -Col. Eallocli. chief coiiiiiiissary Tweutieih Anuy 
Corps, lias made application to l.e assigned to duty M'itli me. I would 
like just sucli a man to superintend all matters relatino; to the Coni- 
luissary of Subsistence Department, as far as tliej" concern this Bureau. 
If you can, consistent with the interests of the service, keep Lieut. - 
Col. Balloch under your supervision and locate him here with me, I 
think it would be for the good of the service. 
Yerv respectfuHv, vour obedient servant, 

O. (). HOWARD, 
Major (tcncra!, Coinmi-ssioucr, dc. 
Official copv : 

THOMAS M, VIXCEXT, 

Assist a n t A dj u tan t- Gen era l. 

[First indorsement.] 

Respectfully submitted to the Secretary of War with request that 
Lieut.-Col. (jcorge W. Balloch, now chief commissary of subsistence 
Twentieth Army Corps, may be assigned to duty in the Bureau of llefu- 
gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and that while so serving he 
may, under the act of the 3d of Mandi, 1805, be assigned the rank, 
pay, and emoluments of a lieutenant-colonel of the Subsistence Depart- 
ment, under the authority of the Secretary of War, so to assign, for 
purposes of inspection or other special duty in the Subsistence Depart- 
onent, six commissaries of subsistence. 

A. B. EATOX, 
Comnii.ssary-Gencral of Suhsistoice. 

Office Commisi^ary Gener^u:. of Subsistence, 

2lay :M), 1805. 

[Second indorsemeut.] 

Approved. Lieut.Col. George W. Balloch, chief commissary of sub- 
sistence Twentieth Army Corps, will be assigned to duty as inspector, 
Subsistence Department, under act of March o, 1805, as recommended 
by the Commissary-General of Subsistence, and ordered to report to 
Major-General Howard for duty. 
By order of the Secretary of ^Var : 

JAS. A. HARDIE, 
Inspector-General and Brevet Brig.-Gen., U. iS. A. 

War Department, May 31, 1865. 

OflBcial copies of indorsements : 

THOMAS M. YIXCF.NT, 

A ss ista nt A. djutant- General. 



96 
Exhibit Y. 

[Special Orders No. 28-i. — Extract.] 

War Depaktment, 
Adjutant General's Office. 

Washington, June C, 18G5. 

****** * 

45. Lieut. Col. George W. Ballocb, cliief commissary of the Twentieth 
Army Corps and captain and commissary of subsistence United States 
Volunteers, is hereby assigned to duty as inspector of the Subsistence 
Department, with the rank, pay, and emoluments of lieutenant-colonel 
of the Subsistence Department, under act of March 3, 18G5. He will 
immediately report in person to Maj. Gen. Howard, Commissioner of 
Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds 

By order of the Secretary of War. 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 
Assistcuit Adjutant- General. 
OfiBcial : 

THOMAS M. YIXCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit Z. 

[Circnlar No. 6.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, June 13, 18G5. 
The following named officers, duly assigned by orders from the War 
Department, are announced on duty in this Bureau, and will be respect- 
ed accordingly : 

******* 

Lieut. Col. George W. Balloch, C. S., inspector of Subsistence De- 
partment. 

******* 

O. O. HOWARD, 



Official 



Major- General, Commissioner of Bureau. 

THO:\rAS M. YIXCEXT, 

Assistant A djuta nt- Genera L 



Exhibit A.' 

[Special Orders No. 14.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, J). C, June 20, 18G5. 
Lieut. Col. George W. Ballocb, on duty as chief commissary and in- 
spector of Subsistence Department of this Bureau, in connection with 



97 

the duties of liis ofiQce as here anuouncetl, will temporarily perform the 
duties of chief accouutiug aud disbursing officer of this Bureau. 

He will keep a complete record of all fuuds accruiug- from every 
source connected with the Bureau, aud of all expenditures iu every de- 
jjartmeut of the same. 

By order of Major-Gen. O. O. Howard : 

SAMUEL L. TAGGAET, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
OfiQcifil copy : 

THOMAS N. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
March 19, 1874. 



Exhibit B^. 

[Special Orders No. 238.] 

War Department, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, May 9, 1867. 

******* 

9. The following-named commissaries of subsistence, United States 
Volunteers, are hereby relieved from the assignments to duty set opposite 
their respective names, under the act of March 3, 1865 : 

Brevet Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, as lieutenant-colonel and in- 
spector Subsistence Department. 

******* 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Official copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Adjutant-General's Office, March 19, 1874. 



Exhibit C.^ 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, September 1, 1868. 

Brevet Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 

Chi^ Disbursing Officer Bureau of B., F. and A. L. : 
General : In accordance with the provisions of section 4, of pub- 
lic act No. 63, of July 16, 1868, you are hereby retained in the service of 
this Bureau, as assigned to duty by extract 45, Special Orders No. 282, 
War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, June 6, 1865, and Special 
Orders No. 14, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
June 20, 1865, with the pay, compensation, and allowances provided for 
in the act above referred to. 
By order of Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard : 

F. D. SEWELL, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Official copy : 

THOMAS M, VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 
7 he 



98 

EXHLBIT — D^ 
[General Orders Xo. 50. J 

Headqvartees of the Army. 
Ad jrTA>T General's Office. 

Washington, July 24, 1S6S, 
The following act of Congress is piiblislied for the iuforoiatiou and 
government of all concerned : 

[PCBLIC — Xo. 63.] 
AX ACT to continne the Bateau for the KeUef of rreedmen and Keftigees and for other purposes. 

[Extract.] 

Sec. 4. And be it further enacted. That officers of the Tetem Eeserse Ccri>s. or of the 
voliiuteer Service, uow on duty iu the Freedmeu's Bureau as assistant commissiouers, 
ajrents. medical officers, or iu other capacities, who have been or may be mastered ont 
ot service, may be retained by the Commissioner when the s;ime shall be required for 
the prtiper execution ot the laws, as officers of the Bureau, upon such duty, and with 
the same pay. compensation, and all allowances, fiom the date of their appointment 
as now provided by law for their respective grades and duties at the dates of their 
muster-out and discharge : and such officers so retained shall have respectively the 
s;ime authority and jurisdiction as now conferred upon ■' officers of the Bureau" by act 
of Congress passed on the sixteenth of July, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty- 
six. 

»****■»**» 

Bv command of General Grant : 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. TIXCEXT. 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



EXHIEIT E^ 
[Special Orders Xo. '210.] 
HEADQrARTEBS OF THE AEMY, 

Adjttaxt-Gexeral's Office, 

Washington. f>eptember 2, 1868. 
♦ »***♦* 

2. Under the provisions of General Onlers Xo. 70. May 1. 1865. from 
this Office, the services of the following named officers being no longer 
needed, they are, by direction of the Secretary of War, hereby honor- 
ably mnstered out of the service of the United States, to take effect 
September 1, 186S. 

They will re^'eive no final payments until they shall have satisfied the 

Pay Department that they are not indebted to the United States. 
'» » * * * » * 

Captain George W. Balloch. (brevet brigadier-general,) commissary 
of subsi.'tence. U. S. Tolunteers. 



By command of General Grant ; 
Official : 



J. C. KELTOy, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



THOMAS 31. TINCEXT, 
Af!sistant Adjutant-General. 
War Department. Adjt'tan't-Gexeral's Office, 

Harch 19, 1874. 



99 
Exhibit F\ 

War Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, October 7, 1871. 

Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 

Chief Disbursing Officer : 
Sir : On account of your appointment to other public duties, as well 
as for the purpose of giving you time to settle your accounts with the 
United States Government, you are hereby relieved as disbursing offi- 
cer of this Bureau. You will turn over to the Commissioner — who will, 
until further orders, discharge the duties of disbursing-officer — all funds, 
bounty-certificates, and other public property for which you are account- 
able, taking his receii)t for the same, with as little delay as practica- 
ble. 

Very respectfully, 

[^ot signed in letter-book.] 
Brigadier General., U. 8. A., Commissioner. 

OfiBcial copy : 

THOMAS M. YINC^ENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
March 19, 1874. 



Exhibit G^ 

War Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedivien and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, October 31, 1871. 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch : 

Sir : By direction of the Secretary of War, the orders dated War 
Department, Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, 
Washington, D. C, September 1, 1871, retaining you as an officer of 
this Bureau, in accordance with section 1 of public act iSTo. G3, of July 
16, 1868, are hereby revoked, to date November 30, 1871. 

You will turn over to the (Commissioner your records and accounts, 
and all other public property for which you are accountable. 

The Commissioner takes this occasion to express his gratitude for the 
long and arduous duties performed by you, and his satisfaction with 
the evidence not only of fidelity but of integrity of jjurpose on your 
part in the disbursement of millions of the public "funds. 
Yery respectfully, 

[Not signed in letter-book.J 
Brigadier General, United States Army, Commissioner. 

Official copy : 

THOMAS M. YINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



lOO 



EXHTBIT H^ 



War Department,. 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, I). C, May 26, 1865. 
Brig. Geiv E. D. Townsend, 

Assistant Adjutant- General : 
General: I have tbe honor to apply for assignment of Capt. J. M. 
Brown, acting quartermaster, to this Bureau, and to request that he be 
directed to report to me without unnecessary delay. 
Yery respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Major- General, Commissioner of Bureau, &c. 
OflScial copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assisstant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit I^ 

[Special Orders No. 275.— Extract.] 

War Department, 
Adjutant- General's Office, 

Washington, June 3, 1865. 

******* 

79. Capt. J. M.Brown, assistant quartermaster of volunteers, ishereby 
assigned to the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
and will report to the Commissioner of that Bureau without unnecessary 
delay. 



By order of the Secretary of War : 
•Official : 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant General. 



Exhibit 3K 

[Circular No. 6.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, June 13, 1865. 
The following named officers, duly assigned by orders from the War 
Department, Adjutant-General's Office, are announced on duty in this 
Bureau, and will be respected accordingly. 

* * * * -* * # 

Capt. J. M. Brown, assistant quartermaster. 

* w* * # # « * 

O. O. HOWARD, 

3Iajor- General, Commissioner of Bureau. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



lOI 

Exhibit K^ 

[Special Orders No. 360.] 

War Department, 

Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, July 17, 1867. 

1. Under the provisions of General Orders No. 79, May 1, 1805, from 

this Office, the services of the following-named assistant quartermasters, 

United States Volunteers, being no longer needed, they are hereby 

honorably mustered out of the service of the United States. 

They will receive no final payments until they shall have satisfied 

the Pay Department that they are not indebted to the United States. 

* # * * * * * 

Captain Joseph M. Brown, (brevet major.) 

* * * , * * # # 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 
War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

3Iarch 19, 1874. 
Official: 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit L^ 

War Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Ereedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, July 29, 1867. 

Thomas P. Johnson, (late captain, assistant quartermaster, and bre- 
vet lieutenant-colonel volunteers,) is hereby appointed a special agent 
and disbursing officer in the Bureau of Kefugees, Ereedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands*, State of North Carolina, at a salary of two hundred dol- 
lars per month. 

This appointment is made in accordance with instructions from the 
Secretary of War, under the provisions of section third of the act of 
Congress passed July 10, 1806, entitled "An act to continue in force 
and amend an act to establish a bureau for the relief of freedmen and 
refugees, and for other purposes." It will take effect July 17, 1867, and 
remain in force until revoked by competent authority. 

Before entering upon his duties the oath of office prescribed by act of 
Congress, approved July 2, 1802, will be taken and filed in the office of 
the assistant commissioner of the State of North Carolina, and he will 
give bonds in the sura of six thousand dollars, with good and sufficient 
securities, to the Treasurer of the United States, for the faithful dis- 
charge of his duties. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
' Major- General, Commissioner. 



I02 

Similar appoiutments for the following: 

******* 

******* 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * * * . 

J. M. Brown, * brevet major volunteers, District of Columbia, 
$200 per mouth, to date July 17, 1867. 



Official copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General, 



Exhibit M^. 

War Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, February 5, 1871. 
Maj. J. M. Brown : 

Sir : You are permitted to withdraw your agreement as per letter of 
November 14, and will continue to disburse public funds under your old 
appointment and hond already on tile. 

Respectfully, your obedient servant, 

[Not signed in letter-book.] 
Brigadier-General., U. 8. A., Commissioner. 
Official copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit N^ 

Office of the Commissioner Bureau of Eefugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington City, January 29, 1872. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War : 

Sir : I have the honor to ask that Maj. J. M. Brown may assist mo in 
the disbursement of the funds of this Bureau. He is now a clerk. I 
ask this because General Schriver intimated that I had better disburse 
the funds myself. I do not feel able to continue the work. The checks 
are small, and there are a great number of them and letters to accom- 
I)any them. The correspondence is so large that I need help. 
Very respectful! v, 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Commissioner, &c. 
Official copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant General. 



I03 
Exhibit O^. 

War Department, 
Washington City, January 31, 1872. 
General O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner Bureau Refugees, &c. : 
Sir : The Secretary of War has received yonr letter of the 29th instant, 
and directs me to reply, that he has no objection to your employing 
Major Brown as an assistant in the disbursement of the funds of your 
Bureau ; you still to be held responsible for the proper disbursement ot 
all public moneys that pass through his hands, as subagent. 

It is suggested that Major Brown be required to give bonds to you for 
the proper performance of his duties. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JOHN POTTS, 

Chief Cleric. 
Official copy: 

THOMAS M. VraCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit P^ 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, February 4, 1872. 
Maj. J. M. Brown, 

Disbursing Officer, (&c., Bureau Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands : 
Sir : By authority of the Secretary of War you will hereafter make all 
disbursements pertaining to the "appropriations of Congress and the 
bounty funds." 

The Commissioner will turn over to you, upon receipts, all money, 
records, &c., pertaining to these funds. 
Very respectfully, 

[Kot signed in letter-book.] 
Brig. Gen., U. 8. A., Commissioner. 



Official copy : 



March 19, 1874. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit Q^ 

War Department, 
Washington, March 7, 1872. 
Hon. E. B. French, 

Second Auditor of the Treasury : 
Dear Sir: As requested in our conversation of this morning I send 



I04 

yon copies of General Howard's request for an assistant in his disburse- 
ments, and of the re])ly of the Department thereto. 
Very truly yours, 

JOHN POTTS, 

GUef Cleric, 
Official copy : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General, 



Exhibit UK 

No. .3479.] Washington, Wovemher 4, 18G9. 

Treasurer of the United States, Washinfjton, pay to Maj. Gen. O. O. 
Howard, or order, one hundred and sixty-eight thousand nine hundred 
and thirty-two ^q\ dollars. 
!fi 108,932.54. J. LEDYAED HODGE, 

Paymaster, V. S. A. 

Indorsed: Paid by Treasurer of United States, December 11, 1869. 
O. O. Howard, G. W. Balloch. 



Exhibit S^ 

United States of America, 

War Department, 
Washinf/ton City, March 20, 1874. 
Pursuant to the act of Congress of tbe 22d February, ]849, I, Wil- 
liam W. Belknap, Secretary of War, do hereby certify that the annexed 
is a true transcript from the records of the Paymaster-General's Oflice, 
in this Department. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
seal of the War Department to be affixed on the day and year first 
above written. 

[seal.] WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War, 



I05 



-siuqsip jaiqa 



'X x- X X X X X Y^ T 5 v! ^ 00 O) q6 oo X X X X X X X X x^ ^! X X X ~ T X X X X X' X) 



'-C o — -)• r: TJ ■ 



: r: c; -r r: to lO o -? l^ 



T-H o( ij -M CI c) c:! .^ -( i-H n -H — i-H rt rH -;< n CI " T^ ct T( " ' r-i ,^ CT CM — ■ — ' oi ain 



c, H- & E E E S. «' ^" ^* f^' fi' - ;: « 



<1<^<1<1<1<1<^S^SSSHi>^^^^h^^l-3H5r^h5h;H;h^<1'^<-^-^<qci0':^:«6OO^ 



O CO O O O ^ O i-t O O O O I-* » lO 1^ »n ' 



t Oi • 



it^C^CiLO^ri*-^^-lCOr--'NO'^tO-*CI— * 



c^ M ro CJ 'O CJ -o ^ c: '^ ^- o r^ r- C". c:5 o CO M c: o -J lO t-- L-^ --- o tr: o X) !^ CO ?•- o i^ CO c: ci 
?*ir5C^ T-»irioDCNocoi-oc*i-'i~-ci'^i~-oioo»rocoot-^oo3^^i— OCT. rti»o-^i--ir3 

i-T cc x" cm' ;o' *rf o' '?> cT -rr cT oo" — T c-f o" r-*" 'X" '^' •3"' rr* ^f o" cT t-T r-:" x a7 -j*' rrT i-T cf irT 



(7lC?<CMlOi::^r-««3T)«» 



jco-^i-ico-^co co<:or-i-rr:<?ji-icoi- 



o :::::::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::: : 

'rtOOC^OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOO^OO 



ooooooooococoocoooooccoocoocoocooc 



r^Owowv'^u<;^v<;i;ouwuvw'..^<-'uu(^wuu'-' 






3[09q0 Aq pI'G(J 



o50(N^-oo^--JCi■^cooJO^-Q01-l-9<t^tl:7?TI'c^lm^-t>ffJOlCl^^w--<^lcoln■^'^^-x>^- 



iooi>r-cocooico 



OOSCiOSOlOSCiOOOOOT 



xcococo^iooi-t-ouo'^cot^cr. O'-'CNcocoior-x.-HrrJCirH 



<(7^(7«3^C^OJCOCOCOCOCOCOCO: 



l-^-^-^-^-ir-t^(^t-t-^'^-f-^-^-^-^-^-^•^-r-^-^-^-^-f^^-l^^-^-^- 



o:c:oots*-i:ic:^t^*^-^tO'^'X>oo«DC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ 

iXQOxxQoooooCoxooooxaoxnO'XX'XJTCxcxaoaoouxaoooaoooxGoooxaoxooQOQO 



)tccc;ccoix>co:c:!C>;i:;-^:cocc^co:o:r;s: 



•^naraXTjd JO 9%v(x 






^•^ XO^G'*i-iC0r3-^C0CiC<(L^I:'i0t-C^"*O(MXO:0C0OOO-^Cr.C:— I 



r-l^Olt-ii-Hr-lr-irH^C^CJCl i-»OlC*CO 



■.-i CJ 0» 1-" C^ 






sa 



^ooopooocccoocooocooooooooooooocoococo 



•8JT!3lf!},l9a 



TH(jiTHf-tr-Hir:a:^m'^iOQ0— 'oor^o— '— ^tcc?«ao — 



ox)T-<nc>»->i;o — = =>xi 



.■7 -j: :;■. oc « 



s— -^SOOt^lOCOO— '' 



i-li-i ^ CI r^ i-i CT! 1-H "■ Ct ^ r-l rl CI r-l r-l r^ H r^ r1 r1 .-^ 



io6 



-s.inqsip ,lou\o 



o — ^ w !:£ !j2 -^ -^ -o :o '^ '^' CO "^c '-D ?£ to :o -^ o -J cr ■_ :c o o o :o ic x> i^D !U3 cc S i= '-c -^ 'X: "^ 
QOCOX)aDaoGOQoa:-c»iX)XJXaoioccQo.xj(X(X'GDajOLjO(»G03uauc»cxjaoccx 

.* • . . , *'^^•^^■^"'^^'^■'^'•^'•^^*^'':^^®•i»,b*.^-.'^fc.^^'i».-fc^■*^ 



r-irtTt'G^i^cic:oi^OQDC<oO'<5'r-';?jroOTO(?Jooi»-HCOTrTrci:c-Toi(?Jr?»r30i.o-<T»n!7i 

w ^- GC cr. C5 '-- -* •-- CI f-- o ^- ?? :c r- cr. 'X cc -T — r: -r c: C". r: -r — o o TO ir; o r: "A i-- I -: ?t i^ 1-^ 
X « L':! ro X o r: TT 7* I?* — • ^ cc i."^ cc 'o o r- G I — — i- t^ o 'T* X lO cc c* lo t-- ;j= -r I--: . — r « x o 

oT o' x' o' crT cT x" r-' «" o' "v" ic' -o' ^^ 1-H cC --T -*' o ^;' -r" — — ' o" X 

(?J r-- C! "V re "^ T-^ -^ c< "T ci ?o CO M r^ o TT !S G^ -c; ^c — — i.~ :c -^ c^ o CO t-- rj 'O ::: -^ ~ *-• o X -- 

p ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; I 

a : '::;::; 1 :;!::;:; I :;;: I ;!::;::;;:;; I ; : 
o 

"co ;;,';;;;;;*.;;;',;;;',;;;;{;;;•;;;;; J I ;;; ; 

a :::::::::::::::: i :;;;;::::;;;;:;; i :;: : 
a :;:;:;;;::;::;::::::;;:;;;:::;;::;:;: : 

o , 

O ;;:;;,;;;;;:;;;;;;;;;;; I I ;;; I ;;;;:;:; : 

ro : I ; ! ! '. ; ; I ; ! ! ! ! ; ; : ; 1 I 1 I ! ; 1 1 I ! ! ! ; I I : ; I i ; 
^ ;:::::: 1 ::;:: i: I ::;!;:'::;:;:;;::;;::: : 
^ :::::;;:::;::;;;;;;:;:;:;;;;;:;:::::: ; 

o 

W ;::;::;::;;;::::::::::::::::::;:::::: : 
o i ::::;:::::::;;:::;;;::;: •::;:::::::! • 
o :;::: i :::: i i :::••::: i :::;:;::::::::•• • 

'Sooooooeoooooocooooooooooocooooeoocoooo 



O 



O 



oo_coocoooocooooooooeooqppo 



. _coooccoo 



— •OR 



oofMt-'cscO'^oociwt'^'^if^oooc; om: 



' ^ c^i c* CO :c t- : 



"t^«ooi'7>^ccci<^»0D^w(?»c»■7Dr'^-S5 



'int^cooot^4--or::3 — ■<rt^^Tj<«ooo(7**ocoioi— i-"^-^:ox-H 



ij^cocD:ocoeoo«ot't^r-t't^t*V'00ooc;oi:;ooo— ' — — 'TJ^i — ro- 



• T lo iri 1/3 ic o 



<(N5J(N(NlJl<rJ(?»3J<N(U<rjffJ<N<NH(N(NO)(N 



i~.f-t^t--r-t-i^t^ 



t.XOOODOOQOOOXOCCC 



0OQ0QOXQOOOQO'X>aDQO0O0OOOGOQD-X0O 



■'4uauijJi3(I JO e^BQ; 



00X)GOiX00a)0DQOCOQ0a&0UaDODG(;aDQO00Goa0aOQ0GOQ0COGCGO^000DaDao>XJ0DCX)X)'30XX) 



> o o 



1-5 1-3 1-5 1-3 &^ 



i2 'r S ^ ^ S ^ ^ ■<-5'^-^-5'?5 >? >? 1^ H^ ►? >? ►^ t^ t? 






S,JO}l[)UV JO 'O^J 



00 — l0^ot-aJ^-f^>t-^-t-o^5t-e>5»of-c5Wl 



n-romcJt-oicsriCJtoo-^iiciS 






I07 



^ ■:^ r^i ^ r^ ZZ ^ <UD '^ ':0 --^ <^ '^ '^ <^ '^ <^ f^ '^ ^ f^' '^ ^^ ''^ <^ '^ '^ '-O ^^ 



oooooooooooooooeoooooooooocoooooobooooooooocooo o o o ^ 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOCOOOOCOOOOOOOOOC005 



{?^lOlri^-aoasCT:o-HC^«ooco^-QOX^^oo^-oo^(^<^oc5Csow^«■^r'alO■^ClOfcooln^--t;cooc2MC253 j( 
<^^(^^o^<^^(^^c<(M^^c^c^<?^o^c<c^(^^o^c^^^CJ^^ol(^^o^clc^^^c^^McoM^cc■■m^:lC0^5^>5^;a5coco:^cocoCTComMWc^ 



OOaOa;OCOOOOQOOOODOOGOODaDOOGOQOGOQOGOOOOOOO'X>GDXa^0^010iCiCiCiCiC1000:^OCiOOOOq200CSC10:CXC5 
OOXQOQOQDaOOOaDOOQOODaoOO<X30CaOauODGDGOOD'XaOGOQOGCOOCCGOX)QOGD(XjOOQOaCQOOOOOOL<^CCGOGOXaOCOauCCCO 












ooooooooooooooocoooooooocooooooooooo 



in o « -^ o o M 'J5 o -r t: 1 ■•?' — ' o -!• 'o —I o « ?! rri t- CO Lc ^ -o (~j CO -T (^ tt o t- ?7 in — ' CJ 'X o CT C-. •* lo _ -s- r: o -J 00 cj 
CiajoooiooooaircT-.ri^roxorHt'QO — CJGOL'^o:^^Goc;cor-Oi^o<7^ — :oc?oooy;o — c: c. jT"^ r^ ^ 3 S S 

<NmrH!OT-lI<Uir3CO'J"Tm'^(NI7<:OrH'^?;cOC<rH'^CCmC)«(NO<0<CC'^CT*rHCO<MOJ«!0:)'^t-l w'* ^- -W -a' CC CO 



io8 



•jaorgo Siii 
-sjnqsip jaiqa 
'qoonBH -AV'^O 



ci 00 = 0000000 = 0-000 = 0000 — • 

— • " - ■ • - t^ i^ t— t- t- ■-=-'-'—=—'- "^ ' 

X X X no X 






(X "x X X X X X X X X X) X X X fc X X X X X X X X X X OO X X X c 



s p i s^' =3 ^ ^ II ^•j'-^-^ Ills Hi Hi^M 



2 P4 dl S4 
"I 03 0; O 



ccj^f-oooooc^O'— ir-tDC^coo^-'!j'Of0 3iioc?omcj^-'^ioco 
Qo" c\ aS ^ « CO o" • rT o" S <c rf i-T ir ^ ^ ^ rr" ?:*" ^^ !?f ri' ^^ ^" *' =^'" *" 



QJ CD 4~- fM 

Ci o -^ "«" 

r- L^ Oi ^ 

Tf c; CO 00 
XI o c?« o 



1 ^ 



ocoococcocooooooooocoooooooo 



CO cr. <:o 

^ C5 ro 
CD ^ o 
O t^ Tf 

r-Too'cT 



2 d 



— •OR 



QOGO-*cllfsoco--^•C4Tr-JQOCJO'vCiOco!^scc^-^'Oo^-^-l 

Trn^oiciOOiOiftooo^^cDJ^t-t-t-J^ooooGoooooooaocrooo 
w«r5CC^:l?o^Cfoco^^cococc'^^coMCC^trtcoMCOCOccM«cocort^^75TJ^ 



?2^ 



■jnanii'Bd JO 9;bq; 



cr, X X 



o^. = = 00000000 



- o o r- i- «' i— t^ t^ i^ I"- ^• t^ ^- *^ t' t^ * 



oo = poo = — — 4^^— <--^ 



) X X X X X X X X X X X X X c 



• t- i^ i— t- *- t- i^ r^ i^ ( 



) X 00 X X X 00 



X' r- T-1 O X t- — 



— rt rH r- rH OI « 



t» > > 



O £ ■ 






i^ — QOOOOrHOClClOO^ — X»-<«^Ot-l 

ff»« — «i-im coi-i co-HCo«(nn com 



Ill 






^O 000OC0OCC0CO0O0C0O03O0COCO0CC0 



i^jo^ipnv JO "o^ 



'Ti'Cir-'3Dt^^o::DxaocDCTiix>a:c:)C:'— ot^rili-:x•ccc^o'X'-lrt--c&1--t^- 



I09 



dOl^lCOOOG^OL'^OOGOT-iCOO 



C^ CC t-. O Ql 



'^■^ — -^OCJ — — 



r-lC?i<Nr-iM T-itC"^^L^O; OC30TP 



■V ■^ 


00 




555 

irao 


i 




il- 


CO 




(XI 


00 





tor;t-(j<oc»5t-QO<Nooo 
00 r-j t- CJ 'X rt — < 00 OD -v 00 

ri r- rD C3 00 lO ;£ GO Cr. tn ir^ 
CO*" «"" CO CT ■^'" OT cf r-T CC t^ rn" 



^3 



£ 3 -^ 



oooooooccoooo 



'C "^ 'w "CCw 'C ^O 'w 'C 'C'^ 'S 'Cw ^ 



■2 2 ® r^ 



(SOOOOOOOOOO 

t* 'w 'O "^ '^ 'w 'O 'w HJI 'C 'B 



s s g 



ooooooocooocooo =,^ ° 
ra ra re -c "c -s n3 -s TS -c T3 x; -cs r3 HH H 



o o 
a a 



'?' O 






O— tCO-^J^i-QOOCOlOOrjCDiJJQOO:! 






CC X X X xo5 X X CC X X X X X X 

oo" o" f*' cT ^5" n cT <?f -v' o' -h" o' co" c^" -^*" 



!^^>?>^h;^h;pp<jis;^^?h?<i 



^ C^ C? CJ (TJ Tt CT C* !7J CI <7< 

r- I' t^ (^ f' t- i— t-- 1' i-^ t^ 

OOXXXXXXXXXX 



coomi-xi-ociXCTGo 



^ TH -^ ff( 






?»5^(i;||^ 



a a 
p s 



^ooocoooooo 

.S'w'w'OiS'C'CewnS'd 









pr;_o 



c-'a 
"a a 



c; a 

"c o 



050<?»r^OrH-<oo — i-: 



m CM — t T o 



CO <o :n ^ C-. :c ^ — ■ 



r- i.'^ r; ?o TO K^ L's r? t- »r: :o 

•* r? CO CI c* :c ^t r^ o o 



no 

[First iudorsenient.] 

Treasury Department, 

August 14, 1873. 
Eespectfnlly referred to the Treasurer of the United States for report 
as to the dates of payment of the within-described checks of Paymas- 
ter J, L. Hodye, drawn on Ids otiice, the party or parties to whom paid, 
and whether their amounts, or any portion thereof, were deposited to 
the credit of their payee, or any other disbursing otticer of the Govern- 
ment, subject to liis ofticial check as prescribed by the act of Juue^ll:, 
18G6. 

WM. A. RICHARDSON, 

Secretary. 
fSecoud iudorsemeut.J 

Office Treasurer United States, 

Washingto7i, August 19, 1873. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of the Treasury. Tlie cliecks 
herein described, drawn on the Treasurer of the United States, were de- 
l»osited to the credit of Gen. G. W. Balloch, chief disbursing olficer, ou 
the dates set opposite the amounts. 

F. E. SPINNER, 

Treasurer. 



Exhibit T^. 

[Circular No. 16.] 

Collection and payment of moneys due colored soldiers. 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freed3ien and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, April 17, 18G7. 
The followino- joint resolution of Congress is published for the infor- 
mation of all concerned : 

[Public resolutiox— No. 25.] 

a EESOLUTION in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due colored sohliera, sailors, 

and marines, or their heirs. 

Besolvedhij llie Senate and Ilouse of Representaiires of the United States of America in Con- 
gress asaemhhd, That all cliecks aud Trfasiuy certificates to be issued intbi? settlement of 
claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, 
or marines, or their legal representatives now residing, or who may have resided, in 
jiny State in which slavery existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, the claim 
for which has been or may be prosecuted by an agent or attorney, shall be made paya- 
ble to the Connnissiouer of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the said agent or 
attorney bis lawful fees and expenses, and shall hold the balance subject to the order 
of the claimants on satisfactory identification; but no money shall be paid to any 
person except the claimant or his or her legal representatives, if deceased ; nor shall 
any power of attorney, transfer, or assignment of the amount of said claims, or any 
part thereof, be recognized or allowed by the Commissioner, or by any officer or agent 
acting under him; and it shall be the duty of the said Commissioner, the officers and 
agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, to facilitate as far as possible the discovery, identiti- 
catiou, and payment of the claimants. 

Sec. 2. Jnd be it further resolved, That the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 
shall be held resi)onsible for the safe custody and laithful disbursement of the funds 
hereby intrusted to him. In settling with tiie attorney or agent of the claimant strict 
compliance with the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of a joint resolution 



I II 

approved June twenty-six, eigLteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled "Joint resolution 
amendatory of a joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers and the pen- 
sions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs," approved June fifteen, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-six, will in every case be required and enforced ; and if any attorney or 
agent shall, in addition to notarial fees and expenses of collecting such claim, demand 
repajMnent for money loaned or advanced to any claimant, he shall be required to make 
oath to the date and amount of such loan or advance, or payment of the fees and ex- 
penses shall be withheld ; and when the claimant shall have been properly identified, 
and his account is readj^ for settlement, the balance due shall be paid in current funds, 
and not in checks or drafts. 

Sec. 3. And be it further resolved, That all money held or disbursed under the provis- 
ions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same rules and regula- 
tions governing other disbursing officers of the Army. 

Approved March 29, 1867. 

Attorneys and agents who receive certificates or checks issued under 
the foregoing- resolution will forward them at once to the Commissioner 
of the Bureau, at Washington, and indorse the words " Claim Division" 
upon the envelopes. 

An itemized bill must accompany each certificate, stating separately 
the amounts charged as attorneys' fees, notarial fees, advances," and ex- 
penses. Jn case advances have been made, the affidavit required in the 
second section of the above act must be forwarded. With each certifi- 
cate the attorney or agent vvill also give the last-known post-office ad- 
dress of the claimant. 

Immediately upon receipt of the certificates, the agent's charges will 
be settled and remitted to him. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Major- General^ Commissioner. 

Official : 

J. A. SLADEN, 

Acting Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit U^ 

[Circular No. 19.] 

Regulations in reference to payment of moneys to colored soldiers, tOc, under 
joint resolution March 29, 1867. 

War Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, May 27, J8G7. 
The following instructions are issued with respect to certificates and 
checks made payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau, 
in compliance with the joint resolution of March 21), 1867, entitled " A 
resolution in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due col- 
ored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs." 

The scale of fees prescribed in the resolution is as follows : 

For the preparation and prosecution of claims for, and the collection and remit- 
tance of, all sums not exceeding $50, the sum of $5; for all sums exceeding lj^.50 and 
less than ijilOO, the sum of ^T-.'iO ; and for all sums exceeding $100, the sum of $10. The 
expense of notarial fees will be borne by the claimant. 

The above scale of fees applies to all settlements, whether on account 
of arrears of pay, bounty, or prize-money. 
If agents have paid notarial fees necessary in the prosecution of a 



I 12 

claim, only the actual amount paid will be allowed; aud should that 
amouut appear suspiciously large, the affidavit of the attorney or ageut 
to its correctness will be required. 

The expenses of stationery, postage, drawing up affidavits, &c., will 
not be allowed. 

Communications containing checks or certificates, or relating to them, 
should be addressed to the Comuiissioner Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
nien and Abandoned Lauds, Washington, D. C, and the words "Claim 
Division" should be indorsed upon the envelope. 

Each check or certificate must be accomi)anied by the agent's or attor- 
ney's bill, nuide out in duplicate against the chximant, and receipted. 
Tlie bills must state separately' the amounts charged as attorney's fee, 
notarial fees paid for the claimant, and advances or loans made to him. 
Each affidavit for which a notarial fee is charged must be specified. 

If advances or loaus have been made^ the affidavit of the attorney to 
their date aud amount, and the receipt of the claimant, or other satis- 
factory vouchers, will be required. 

Only advances or loans of money will be recognized at this Office, 
and the affidavit of the attorney of record only will be received. 

The " blue letter," or letter of transmittal, from the Auditor's Office, 
must accompany each certificate. This letter will be returned to the 
attorney. 

Letters of transmittal must accompany all documents sent to this 
office. 

\Vith each certificate must be given the last known address of the 
claimant. 

Certificates payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau 
should not be signed by the claimant, nor should the assignment upon 
the back of them be executed. 

No assignments of certificates, or powers of attorney to collect them, 
can be recognized by this Bureau. 

Ui)on receipts of certificates the attorney's charges will be settled 
and reuiitted to them. The amount due the claimant will be paid 
through the disbursing officers of this Bureau, or other designated 
agents. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Major General, Commissioner. 



Official 



J. A. SLADEN, 

Act. Asst. Adj. Gen. 



Exhibit Y\ 

[Circular letter.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen ain^d Abandoned Lands, 

Office of Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, January 28, 1868. 
The attention of disbursing officers, agents, aud others engaged in 
the payment of bounties, prize-money, &c., due colored soldiers and 
sailors, is invited to the necessity of having the signatures of claimants 
written so as to correspond exactly with the name as signed on the 
back of the voucher. In case of any discrei)aucy between the name 



113 

given by the party or parties presentiug- themselves as claimants and 
the name as given on the voucher, it will in all cases be returned to 
this office, with a statement of the difference existing. 

When a voucher is signed by mark, the signature must be witnessed 
by at least two persons who write. 

Bv command of Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner: 

GEO. W. B ALLOC H, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. mid Chief Dishursing Officer. 



Exhibit W^, 

[Circular No. 1.] 

Regulations in reference to payment of moneys to colored soldiers, ttc, under 
joint resolution March 29, 1867. 

[This circular supersedes Circular 19, of May 27, 1867.] 

War Depaet^ient, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington^ March 14, 1868. 

The following instructions are issued with respect to certificates and 
checks made payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau, 
in compliance with the joint resolution of March 29, 1867, entitled "A- 
resolution in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due 
colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs." 

The scale of fees prescribed in the resokition is as follows: "For the 
preparation and prosecution of claims for, and the collection and remit- 
tance of, all sums not exceeding fifty dollars, the sum of five dollars ; 
for all sums exceetling fifty aud less than one hundred dollars, the sum 
of seven dollars aud fifty cents ; and for all sums exceeding one 
hundred dollars, the sum of ten dollars. The expense of notarial fees 
will be borue by the claimant." 

The above scale of fees applies to all settlements, whether on account 
of arrears of pay, bounty, or prize-money. 

If agents have paid notarial fees necessary in the prosecution of a 
claim, only the actual amount paid will be allowed; aud should that 
amount appear sus[)iciously large, the affidavit of the attorney or agent 
to its correctness will be required. 

The expenses of stationery, postage, drawing up affidavits, »&c., will 
not be allowed. 

Communications containing checks or certificates, or relating to them, 
should be addressed to the Commissioner Bureau llefugees, Freedmen 
aiul Abandoned Lands, Washington, D. C, and the words "Claim 
Division" should be indorsed upon the envelope. 

Each check or certificate must be accompanied by the agent's or 
attorney's bill, made out in duplicate against the claimant, and re- 
ceipted. The bills must state sei)arately the amounts charged as attor- 
ney's fees, notarial fees paid for the chiimant, and advances or loans 
made to him. Each atfidavit for which a notarial fee is charged must 
be specified. 

If loans or advances have been made, the affidavit of the attorney or 
agent to their date and amount will be required, and the acknowledg- 
ment of the receipt of the same by the claimant, certified to by an 
She 



114 

officer or agent of this Bureau, when practicable, or by some officer 
legally authorized to administer an oath. 

Advances or loans made after the issuing of the certificate will not 
be recognized. 

Only advances or loans of money will be recognized at this office, and 
the affidavit of the attorney of record only will be received. 

The letter of transmittal from the Auditor's Office must accomi^any 
each certificate. 

Letters of transmittal from correspondents must accompany all docu- 
ments sent to this office. 

With each certificate must be given the last known post-office address 
of the claimant. 

Certificates payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau 
should not be signed by the claimant, nor should the assignment upon 
the back of them be executed. 

No assignments of certificates or powers of attorney to collect them 
can be recognized by this Bureau. 

Upon receipt of certificates the attorney's charges will be settled and 
remitted to him. The amount due the claimant will be paid through 
the disbursing officers of this Bureau, or other designated agents, as 
soon as practicable. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Major- General., (commissioner. 



Exhibit X^ 

[Circular No. 5.] 
Resjiecting signctures hy marJc (s) and by stamp. 

Wah Department, 

BUREATJ EEFUGES, rilEED:JIEN, AND ABANDONED LANDS, 

Washington, D. C, July 10, 18G8. 
The following decisions of the Third Auditor of the United States 
Treasury Dejiartment are republished for the information and guidance 
of officers and agents of this Bureau : 

Tkkasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, June 17, 1364. 

Sir ; I have received your letter of yesterday, stating that you have beeu informed 
" that in the examination of accounts by this office, all pay-rolls are suspended where 
the marks are witnessed by the paying clerk," and that " if tljis is so, it is important 
that you should know it officially, as it is your practice to have the clerk who sees or 
who makes the payment witness the mark, [x,] he being a third party, and very fre- 
quently the only person present ;" stating, fuither, that you " also learn that accounts 
are suspended by reason of the mark [x] resembling the handwriting, of the witness or 
clerk tilling the name each side of it;" that it is " the custom (rendered imperative by 
the great number i)aid) to have each man touch the end of the penholder, which re- 
mains in the hand of the clerk;" and, finally, asking to be informed what the practice 
of this office is with respect to the allowance of vouchers of disbursing officers in cases 
similar to the ones cited. 

I have to state, in reply, that I am. not aware of objections being raised in this office 
against the sufficiency of a voucher for the reason simply that the clerk who made 
the payment is the only attesting witness to the mark — thus : his x mark — of a creditor 
or of an employ^ who cannot through ignorance, or could not at the time of payment 
1>V reason of injury to his hands, or other sufficient cause, write his own name, but who 
makes his marii [x] instead. I regard such a receipt, if it is correct in other r^'spects, 
as perfectly valid, and as binding upon all concerned as if the party had actually 



115 

written his name in fall with his own hand. Where there is no good reason to suspect 
that the mark [x] affixed to a receipt was not made by the person i^urportin"; to have 
been paid, the presumption is that the party receiving the money actually with his own 
hand made the mark ; and if it is duly witnessed, the receipt is regarded as a sufficient 
one. The clerk or witness may, for the j)nrpose of expediting payments, guide 
the haud of the one who receipts by mark, [x, ) both together holding the pen, 
and this does not invalidate the receipt — the mark in such case being regarded, if 
made at the time of payment, as valid as if it had been made entirely by the receipting 
party himself. But where, from the exact uniformity in the handwriting of the signa- 
tures to a receipt-roll, both of names and marks, [x,] it is manifestly certain that the 
rolls were made up entire, even to the signing of thi:! names, makiug the marks, and wit- 
nessing the payments before the payments were actually made, and in the absence of 
the parties to whom the payments were due, I consider it my duty to direct the sus- 
pension of such i-olls for want of proper evidence that the parties have been paid. 

Many such rolls have been presented for allowance in the accounts of disbursino- 
officers, and have been suspended. 

It is believed that a practice has obtained among disliursing officers of the Army, 
esijecially in cases where their employ6s are numbered by thousands, and the duty of 
paying tliem off is one of very considerable magnitude, to thus ])repare their rolls in 
advance, perfecting them before payment, to all appearances, as fully as it could l)e done 
if the receipts were affixed at the proper time, that is, the time of payment, and by 
the proper jjarties. 

This practice is clearly Avrong, and might lead not only to iunocent mistakes, but 
also to extensive frauds upon the Government. 

It is absolutely necessary, 1 know, where many payments are to be made, that the 
rolls should be prepared in advance ; but such preparation ought to extend no further 
than entering the dates, numbers, occupation, period of service, rate of pay, stoppages, 
if any, and amount due, leaving the signers' names, and the marks [x] and names of 
witnesses, where necessary, to be affixed ai, the time and place of payment, bearing in 
mind always that if a person can write his name he must write it, and not affix his mark. 
Very respectfully, 

E. J. ATKINSON, Auditor. 

Capt. C. H. Tompkins, 

A. Q. M., Washington, D. C. 



Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor'^ Office, June 20, 1864. 

Sir : I have received j-our letter of the 19th instant, inclosing copy of a letter from 
Gen. Robert Allen, chief quartermaster of the district of the Mississippi, stating the 
practice of officers of Nashville, Chattanooga, &c., in having their names sfamjjed or 
lithographed on bills of lading and orders for transportation, &c. 

General Allen states that these bills of lading and orders for transportation are sub- 
vouchers to cash-accounts ; that he is receiving every day orders for transportation 
signed in this manner, to refuse which will create embarrassment, and to receive will 
make an illegal account ; you, therefore, request my opinion as to the legality of this 
practice, in order that such opinion may be communicated to General Allen and 
others. 

In reply I have the honor to inform you that, with every disposition to make allow- 
ance for pressure of business, and the emergencies of the service, especially in the field, 
I do not see how it would be possible to recognize these stamped or lithographed sig- 
natures to anything in the nature of a voucher or forming a basis or anthoritg for the ex- 
penditure of money without opening a wide door to fraud, and overthrowing all the 
checks and guards imposed by regulations and the usages of the Departments in order 
to test the verity and genuineness of othcial transactions. 

These stamps are not in a majority of cases, I apprehend, even affixed by the officer 
whose name is used, but by some subordinate ; it therefore becomes impossible to hold 
such officers to the responsibilities attaching to a tcritten signature made by the officer in 
person. 

This is the kind of signature contemplated by law and regulations, and should not 
be dispensed with except in the case of parties who, from the want of education or dis- 
ability, are unable to write, in which case the signature by x mark is authorized to be 
attested by a third party. 

There are doubtless many cases in which, for convenience and dispatch, and under 
proper guards and restrictions, officers may resort to the useof a stamp or lithographed 
signatures: thus, for transacting certain routine business between different officers 
upon conditions mutually understood, and for various other purposes involving no lia- 



ii6 

bility of the Government or expenditure of money, such arrangements may perhaps be 
made, farilitatiug business without detriment to the public interest. 

Beyond this I think the practice referred to veiy unsafe, and in my opinion should 
be discouraged and broken up. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 



Brig. Geu. M. C. Mkigs, Qnartennafiter-Geiicrid. 



R. J. ATKINSON, Auditor. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Mtijor-Gencral, Comtimsiouer. 



Exhibit X^ 

[Circular No. G.] 

Publishes act to continue Bureau to July IG, 1869. 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

^\^ashington, July 17, ISGS. 
The following act of Congress is published for the information and 
government of all concerned : 

[Public— No. G:).] 

AN ACT to continue the Bureau for tbe relief of Freednien .and Refugees, anil for other purposes. 

Be it eiuicted hji tlie Senate and Home of Beprrsenfatires of the United States of America in 
Conqress an.semhfed, That the act entitled "An act to establish a Bureau for the relief of 
Frei'dnien and Refugees," approved March three, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and 
the act entitled "An act to continue in force and to amend 'An act to establish a Bu- 
reau for the relief of Freedmeu and Refugees,' and for other purposes," passed on the 
sixteenth of July, anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixty-six, shall continue in force 
for the term of one year from J»nd after the sixfeenth of July, in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and sixty-eight, excepting ,so far as the same shall be herein modified. 
And the Secretary of War is hereby directed to re-establish said Bureau where the same 
has been wholly or in part discontinued : Brorided, [That] he shall be satislied that 
the personal safety of freedmeu shall require it. 

Sec. 2. And he it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the Secretary of War to 
discontinue the operations of the Bureau in any State whenever such State shall be 
fully restored in its constitutional relations with the Government of the United States, 
and shall be duly represented in the Congress of the United States, unless upon advis- 
ing with the Commissioner of the Bureau, and upon full consideration of the condition 
of'freedmen's affairs in such State, the Secretary of War shall be of opinion that the 
further continuance of the Bureau siiall be necessary : Brorided, however, That the edu- 
cational division of said Bureau shall not be alfect(^d, or in any way interfered with, 
until such State shall have made suitable provision for the educatiim of the childreu 
of freedmeu within said State. 

Sk.c. 3. And he it further enacted, That unexpended balauces in the hands of the Com- 
missioner, not required otherwise for the due execution of the law, may be, in the dis- 
cretion of the Commissicmer, applied for the education of freedmeu aud refugees, sub- 
ject to the provisions of law ajiplicable thereto. 

Skc. 4. And he it further enactid, That olHcers of the Veteran Reserve Corps or of the 
volunteer service, now on duty in the Freedmen's Bureau as assistant commissioners, 
agents, nuMlical officers, or in other capacities, who luive been or may be nmstered out 
of service, may be retained by the Conmiivssioner, when the same shall be required for 
the proper execution of the laws, as officers of the Bureau, upon such duty and with 
the same pay, conii)ensation, and all allowances, from the date of their appointment 
as now ])i()vidcd by law for their respective grades and duties at the dates of their 
muster-out and discharge; and such officers so retained sliall have, respectively, the 
same authority and jurisdiction as now conferred u])()n " officers of tin; Bureau " by 
act of Congress passed on the sixteenth of July, in the year eighteen hundred and 
sixty-six. 

Skc. 5. And he it further enacted, That the Commissioiur is hereby empowered to sell 
for cash, or by installmeuts with ample security, scluxd-bnildings and other buildings 
constructed ior refugees aud freedmeu by the Bureau, to the associations, corporate 



117 

bodies, or trustees -who now nse them for purposes of education or relief of -n-aut, 
under suitable guarantees that the purposes for which such buildings were con- 
structed shall be observed : Provided, That all funds derived therefrom shall be re- 
turned to the Bureau-appropriation and accounted for to the Treasury of the United 
States. 
Indorsed by the President : Eeceived June 24, 1868. 

[Note by the Department of State.] — The foregoing act having been presented 
to the President of the United States for his approval, and not having been returned 
by him to the House of Congress in which it originated within the time prescribed by 
the Constitution of the United States, has become a law without his approval. 

By decision of the Secoiul Comptroller of the Treasury Departinent, 
none of the provisions of the above act went into effect before July 16. 
1868. 

The retention authorized is equivalent to a re-a[)pointmeut. Assist: 
ant commissioners will therefore forward the names of such officers as 
may be required for reassignment under this act. 

The chief disbursing officer will furnish to the disbursing officers of 
the several States the necessar}- blanks for the settlement of accounts 
in accordance with this law. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
2Iajo r- Gen era /, Co m m ission er. 



Exhibit Z\ 

[Circular letter.] 

War DEPAIIT3IENT, 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, September 29, 1868. 
The following instructions for the retention and payment of officers 
and agents in this Bureau are promulgated. 

Officers formerly of the Veteran Reserve Corps, or of the volunteer 
service, now on duty in this Bureau, who have been or may be retained 
by appointment or re-assignment of the Commissioner, under the pro- 
visions of section 1 of public act Xo. 63, 1868, will be paid the compen- 
sation and all allowances of their former grade, from the date of such 
appointment or reassignment. 

Agents who have not been appointed or re-assigned under the act 
above referred to are not entitled to increase of pay. 

Officers and agents who were mustered out of the service prior to the 
passage of the act of Jul^', 1868, and have subsequently been takeu up 
and paid as citizen agents, will not receive any increase of salary or 
difference in compensation, in the nature of allowances or otherwise. 
They are regarded as civilian appointments, and will be borne upon the 
rolls as such, and paid accordingly until reassigned as previously 
stated. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Major- Genera I, Commissioner. 
Approved : 

J. M. SCHOFIELD, 

Secretary of War. 



ii8 
Exhibit A^. 

[Circular No. 8.] 

3Iilitary protection to Bureau officers. 

War Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, September 29, 1868. 
The attention of assistant commissioners and officers of this Bureau 
is called to the following extract from section 3 of the act of Congress 
to continue in force the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands, jiassed July 16, 1866 : 

* * * "All persons appointed to service under this act and the act to which 
this is an amendment shall be so far deemed in the military service of the United 
States as to be under the military jurisdiction, and entitled to the military jirotectiou, 
of the Government while in discharge of the duties of their office." 

* * # * * * * 

By order of 3Iaj. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner : 

F. D. SEWALL, 

Acting Assistant Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit B^. 

[Circular No. 10.] 

Organizing that part of the Bureau continued after January 1, 1869. 

AVAR Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, Xovemher 17, 1868. 

In accordance with the act of Congress of July 25, 1868, the operations 
of this Bureau, excepting the educational department, and the collec- 
tion and payment of moneys due soldiers and sailors, and their heirs, 
from the Government on account of military services, will be discontin- 
ued on the 31st day of December next. 

All ofiflcers of the military service will be relieved, and citizen agents 
discharged, to take effect on that date, except such as may hereafter be 
designated to be retained in the educational department, and for the 
collection and payment of bounties and pensions. 

All property pertaining to this Bureau which may not be required in 
the educational department, or as office-furniture for the use of disburs- 
ing agents, will be turned over to the disbursing officer of the State iu 
which it is held, who will sell the same in accordance with the regu- 
lations governing the sale of public property, upon the order of the 
Commissioner. 

Property belonging to the quartermaster's or other supply depart- 
ment of the Armj", Mill be turned over to the department to which it 
belongs. Inventories, in duplicate, of all property to be sold or turned 
in, will be sent to this Office. 

Assistant commissioners will at once cause to be sold, by the dis- 
bursing ofticer at public auction, all "Confederate States" property in 
their respective States held by this Bureau. The proceeds of the sale 
of the same will be turned over to the chief disbursing officer in this 
city. Should any portion of said property remain unsold on the 31st 



119 

day of December, the same will be reported to the Commissioner. This 
report will embrace a brief descriptiou of the property, with its esti- 
mated value. 

All books aud records, except those relating- to the educational work 
and the payment of bounties, will be carefully packed and sent by express 
to the Commissioner in this oity. Invoices of the same will be sent by 
mail. 

The following' organization for the educational department, and col- 
lection and payment of bounties, will be allowed for the several States, 
respectively : 

TIEGI^'IA. 

One assistant commissioner, who will also act as superintenent of 
schools. 

One disbursing officer for the educational department and payment 
of bounties. 

One agent for the payment of bounties. 

Four assistant superintendents of schools. 

One clerk for assistant commissioner and chief superintendent. 

Two clerks for disbursing officer. 

XOETH CAROLI>'A. 

Assistant commissioner aud chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department aud payment of 
bounties. 

Two agents for pa^Tueut of bounties. 
Three assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Assistant commissioner and chief superinten.dent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department and i^ayment of 
claims. 

Two agents for payment of bounties. 
Two assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

FLORIDA. 

Assistant commissioner and chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department aud payment of 
bounties. 

One agent for payment of bounties. 
One assistant superintendent of schools. 
Two clerks. 

GEORGIA. 

Assistant commissioner aud chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department and payment of 
bounties. 

One agent for payment of bounties. 
Four assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 



I20 



ALABAMA. 



Assistant commissioner and cbief superintendent of scliools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department and payment of 
bounties. 

Two assistant superintendents of schools. 
Two clerks. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

Assistant commissioner and chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational departmeat and payment of 
bounties. 

Two agents for payment of bounties. 
Two assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

LOUISIANA. 

One assistant commissioner and chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department and payment of 
bounties. 

Two agents for payment of bounties. 
Two assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

TEXASo 

Assistant commissioner and chief superiutendeut of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational depariment and payment of 
bounties. 
Three assistant superintendents of schools. 
Two clerks. 

ARKANSAS. 

Assistant commissioner and chief superintendent of schools. 
One disbursing officer for educational department and payment of 
bounties. 

One agent for payment of bounties. 
Three assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

TENNESSEE. 

Assistant commissioner and chief superintendent of schools, 
One disbursing officer for educational department and payment of 
bounties. 

Five agents for payment of bounties. 
Three assistant superintendents of schools. 
Three clerks. 

KENTUCKY. 

Assistant commissioner, who will also act as disbursing officer and 
chief suiieriutendeut of schools. 
Three agents for payment of bounties. 
One assistant superintendent of schools. 
Two clerks. 

MISSOURI. 

One disbursing officer for payment of bounties and superintendent of 
schools. 
One clerk. 



121 



DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 



One 'assistant supeimteudent of schools, who will be under the direc- 
tion of the general superintendent at the office of the Commissioner. 

One agent for the payment of bounties, at Baltimore, Maryland. 

Orders relating to the freedmen's hospital at New Orleans, La.^ 
Vicksburg, Miss., Richmond, Ya., and Washington, D. C, will hereafter 
be communicated. 

In the mean time, the number of medical officers, attendants, and 
patients, now in those hospitals, will be reduced as speedily as possible^ 
a id they will be conducted with a view to closing them at an early 
day. 

All other medical officers, attendants, and employes will be dis- 
charged on the 31st of December next. 

Medical supplies and hospital-stores will be sold, or disposed of, un- 
der the direction of the chief medical officer. 

Assistant commissioners will, as soon as practicable, send to the Com- 
missioner lists of officers and agents they desire retained in their 
respective States as assistant superintendents of schools, and agents for 
the payment of bounties, as allowed in the organizations stated above. 
Officers and agents familiar with the duties are to be preferred. In 
some cases the number of officers may be reduced by one agent's per- 
forming both the duties of assistant superintendent of schools and dis- 
bursing agent. 

Disbursing officers will at once settle all accounts due from the Bureau 
in their respective States. In cases requiring the approval of the 
Commissioner, or where there is any doubt as to the validity of the 
claim, or of the authority to pay the same, they will be immediately 
referred to this Office. They will see that no legal or just claims are 
left unsettled. They will be prepared to turn over all public funds to 
the chief disbursing officer, when the general operations of the Bureau 
are withdrawn on the 31st of December next. 

O. O. HO^YAPtD, 
2IaJor- General, Commissioner. 

Approved : 

J. M. SCHOFIELD, 

Secretary of \Ym\ 



Exhibit C^ 

■' [Circular letter.] 

War Department, 
Bureau liEFuaEES, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

^Yash^}^gton, D. C, November 20, 1868. 
The following instructions are issued to guide agents engaged in pay- 
ing bounties to freedmen, (late soldiers :) 

Whenever checks or drafts payable to the order of the claimants are 
sent to agents of this Bureau, it is the duty of the agent to assist the 
claimant to convert the same into currency, and not leave him to do it 
himself, and thus put him in the power of sharpers and unprincipled 
men. The simple delivery of the check or draft to the claimant does 
not fulfill the terms of the law. 
By order of the Commissioner. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General, and Chief Dish ur sing Officer. 



12 2 

Exhibit D-. 

[Circular No. 11.] 

Loans and advances hy a^jcnis or attorneys no longer allowed. 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, December S, 18G8. 
The instructions contained in Circular IS'o. 1, dated March 14, 1868, 
relating to loans and advances by agents or attorneys, are hereby re- 
scinded. 

In the payment of bounties to colored soldiers, officers and agents of 
this Bureau will not recognize loans or advances made by the agent or 
attorney subsequent to December 20, 1868. After deducting the legal 
lees and ex[)enses due the attorney, the balance Mill be paid the soldier, 
or if deceased, to his legal representatives. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Major-General, Commissioner. 



Exhibit E^ 

[Circular No. 1.] 

Regulations la reference to payment of moneys to colored soldiers, lOc, 
under joint resolution March 1*9, 1867. 

(This circular supersedes Circulars Nos. 19, of May 27, 1867 ; 1, of March 14, 18G8 ; and 

11, of December 8^ 1808.) 

War Department 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

^Yashlngton, February 1, 1869. 

The following instructions are issued with respect to certificates and 
checks made payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau, 
ill com[)liance with the joint resolution of Congress approved March 
29, 1867, entitled "A resolution in reference to the collection and payment 
of moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs.'" 

Following is the scale of fees prescribed by joint resolution of Con- 
gress approved July 26, 1866 : 

^^ For the pre])aratlon and prosecution of claims for, and the collection 
4:ind remittance of, all sums not exceeding fifty dollars, the sum of Jive dol- 
lars ; for all sums exceeding ffty and less than one hundred dollars, the 
sum of seven dollars and fifty cents ; and for all sums exceeding one hun- 
dred dollars, the sum of ten dollars.'''' The expense of necessary notarial 
fees ivill be borne by the claimant. 

The above scale of fees applies to all settlements, whether on account 
of arrears of pay, bounty, or i)rize-mouey. 

If agents have paid notarial fees necessary in the prosecution of a 
claim, only the actual amount paid will be allowed ; aud should that 
amount ai)pear susi)iciously large, theaflidavit of the attorney or agent 
to its correctness will be re<juired. 

The expenses of stationery, postage, drawing up affidavits. &c., will 
not be allowed. 

Communications containing checks or certificates, or relating to them, 



123 

should be addressed to tbe Commissiouer Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu 
aud Abandoned Lands, Washington, D. C, and tbe words " Chiim Di- 
vision " sboukl be indorsed upon the envelope. 

Each check or certificate mast le accompanied by the agent's or at- 
torney's bill, made out in duplicate against the claimant, and receipted. 
The bills must state separately the number and amount of the check or 
certificate, the amounts charged as attorney's fee, notarial fees paid 
for the claimant, and advances or loans made to him. Each affidavit for 
which a ndtarial fee i^ charged mxst be specified. 

If loans or advances have been made, the affidavit of the attorney or 
agent to their date and amount will be required, and the acknowledg- 
ment of the receipt of the same by the claimant, certified to by an 
ofiicer or agent of this Bureau. 

Advances or loans made after the issuing of the certificate will not 
be recognized. 

Advances or loans made subsequent to December 20, 18G8, will not 
be recognized. 

Only advances or loans of money^ made by the attorney of record, 
will be recognized at this Office, and his affidavit only will be received. 

The letter of transmittal from the Auditor's Office, and the discharge of 
the claimant, must accompany each certificate. 

Letters of transmittal from correspondents must accompany all cer- 
tificates sent to this Office. 

^V'ith each certificate must be given the last known post-office address 
of the claimant. 

Certificates payable to the order of the Commissioner of this Bureau 
should not be signed by the claimant, nor should the assignment upon 
the back of them be executed. 

Xo assignments of certificates, or powers of attorney to collect them, 
can be recognized by this Bureau. 

Upon receipt of certificates the attorney's charges will be settled aud 
remitted to him. The amount due the claimant will be paid through 
the disbursing officers of this Bureau, or other designated agents, as 
soon as practicable. 

O. O. HOTTAED, 
Bvt. jifaj. Gen., Commissioner. 



Exhibit F^ 

[Circular No. 4.] 

After May 1, 1809, rt/Z disbursements for expenses of the Bureau to be 
made by the chief disbursing officer. 

WAn Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, April 15, 1809. 
After the 1st day of May, all disbursements for the expenses of the 
Bureau will be made by the chief disbursing officer at this Office. 

Superintendents of schools will prepare the necessary vouchers for 
school-expenses, rents of offices, &c., approve the same, and send them 
to this Office for payment. 

Surgeons in charge of hospitals will transmit all their vouchers to 
the chief medical officer, for his examination and approval. 



124 

Agents for the payment of bounties will send all their accounts for 
salaries, expense of rental, &c., to the chief disbursing officer. 
Accounts will be rendered monthly. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. A., Corner. 



Exhibit G^. 

[Circular-letter.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, May 20, 1871. 
Agents of this Bureau will hereafter take receipts in duplicate for all 
bounties and other moneys paid, veritied by Uco disinterested witnesses, 
at the time the payments are made^ one copy of which they will retain for 
their own protection, and one copy they will forward to this Office. They 
will also make a consolidated monthly report to the Commissioner for 
his information, showing the date of each jiayment, the amount paid, 
and the names of the payor, payee, and the witnesses. The agent will 
in no case sign a voucher or receipt as witness to his own payment. 
Bj" order of Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner : 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit H^ 

[Circular-letter.] 

War DEPART3IENT, 

Bureau Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, June 1, 1871. 

Mauy claims of colored soldiers, sailors, and marines have heretofore 
been collected for the claimants without charge to them. An appropria- 
tion was asked of the last Congress for the continuance of this work as 
well as for the payment of bounties. The estimate of the Commissioner 
was reduced more thau one-half in the House of Kepresentatives. It 
will, therefore, be necessary to discontinue the collection of claims with- 
out charge on the 1st of July uext. If, however, the claimants desire, 
this Bureau will collect their claims, tleducting from each the fee allowed 
by law to attorneys to pay the necessary expenses. 

By joint resolution of Congress, approved July 20, 18G6, the following 
scale of fees is prescribed : " For the preparation and prosecution ot 
claims for, and the collection and remittance of, all sums not exceeding 
fifty dollars, the sum of five dollars; for all sums exceeding fifty and 
less than one hundred dollars, the sum of seven dollars and fifty cents ; 
and for all sums exceeding one hundred dollars, the sum of ten dollars." 
The expense of necessary notarial fees will be borne by the claimaiit. 

But any claimant, whose claim has been filed through this Bureau, 
and is now pending, may designate any other agency for the prosecu- 
tion of his claim, when all papers on file relating to the case will be 
transferred to said agent on the written application of the claimant. 
All who desire to transfer their claims to other agents are requested to 
do so without delay. 

By order of Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner : 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant-General. 



125 

Exhibit P. 

Received, at Washington, D. C, this 19th. day of July, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, three hundred and one 
dollars and sixteen cents, in full for arrears of pay and bounty, as per 
Treasury certificate No. 582311, after deducting attorney's fees for col- 
lection. 

ber 

$301.10. MARY + ADKIXS, 

iiiark 

Widotv of Clement AdMns^ 
late private Company F, Fifty -first Regiment U. S. C. T. 
Witnesses : 

S. A. Leakin. 
J. Woodward. 



Statement. 

Number of Treasury certificate, 582311. 

Amount of Treasury certificate $316 60 

Amount of fees $10 00 

Notarial fees 5 50 

Advances 

15 50 

Balance paid claimant 301 10 



Exhibit J^ 

Received at Washington, D. C., this 10th day of June, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, two hundred and eighty- 
seven dollars, in full for bounty, as per Treasury certificate No. 520518, 
after deducting attorney's fees for collection. 

Ills 
1287.] DUBLIN -f AUGERTON, 

mark 
Late Private Company C, Forty-ninth Regiment U. 8. C. T. 

Witnesses : 
O. C. French. 
C. C. Walden. 

Statement. 

Number of Treasury certificate, 520518. 

Amount of Treasury certificate $300 

Amount of fees $10 

Notarial fees , , 3 

Advances > . . . 

13 

Balance paid claimant 287 



126 

Exhibit K^ 

[Circular letter.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freed^ien and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, Angust 22, 1871. 
In cou sequence of the decision of the Hon. Attorney-General, of date 
August 17, 3 871, that the second section of the joint resohition of Con- 
gress approved July 20, 1860, does not specificially authorize this Bu- 
reau to act as attorney in the collection of claims of colored soldiers, 
sailors, and marines, so far as relates to the retention of the fees named 
in the law, the circular letter of June 1, 1871, from this Bureau, per- 
mitting such retention, is hereby revoked. 

All fees retained under the provisions of that circular will be for- 
warded to the claimants, and all claims already on file in this Bureau will 
be collected without cost to the claimauts. 

By order of Brigadier-General O. O. Howard, U. S. A., Commissioner: 

J. A. SLADEN, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant General. 



Exhibit L^ 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, February 18, 1870. 

Hon. W. P. Kellogg, 

United States Senator, Washington, I). C. : 

Sir : 1 respectfully acknowledge the receipt of a communication under 
date of February 11, 1870, of Mr. G. L. Hall, forwarded by you with 
request that I inform you if there is anything in the matter. In reply, 
I give you a history of the case. 

St. Clair Mandeville was appointed an agent of this Bureau at New 
Orleans, La., in May, 18G7, for the payment of bounties, &c., to colored 
soldiers^ sailors, and marines, and gave bonds for the faithful perform- 
ance of his duties. His appointment was made at the earnest solicita- 
tion of the late Maj. Gen. Joseph A. Mower, then assistant commissioner 
for Louisiana, and his (Maudeville's) official bond was approved by Gen- 
eral Mower. 

As soon as this appointment was made the chief disbursing officer of 
this Bureau sent Mr. Mandeville a complete list of all the counties in 
Louisiana ready lor payment, giving the name of the claimant, the 
amount due him, the company and regiment to which he belonged, and 
his last known post-office address. These lists were continued as fast 
as claims were settled until he died. 

From time to tmie Mr. Mandeville reported to the chief disbursing 
officer that he had found certain of these claimauts, upon which proper 
vouchers were made out for them to sign, and sent to him (Mandeville) 
to have executed. Whenever he returned a lot of these vouchers pro})- 
erly signed and witnessed, the chief disbursing officer would draw a 
check on the assistant treasurer at New Orleans, for the wliole amount 
of the vouchers sent, to the order of Mr. Mandeville, and send it to him, 
accompanied with a list of the claimants to whom it belonged, giving 
the name, company, and regiment, and the amount due each claimant. 



127 

No money was ever sent until such voucbeis had been received. The 
receipt of these checks was duly acknowledged in all cases by Mr. Man- 
deville. 

The first check was sent him June 20, 18G7, and between that time 
and October 22, 1867, inclusive, there had been sent him 194,852.31. 
On the 28th day of October, 1807, Mr. Mandeville died very suddenly 
of cholera, after a sickness of only a few hours. He had just got up 
from yellow fever, which all his family had, and from which his clerk 
had died only a few days before. Of course his business matters were 
thus left at loose ends. General Mower at once appointed a commission 
to take charge of his effects. In his safe was tound the sum of $9,571.05, 
which was snpposed to be Government funds. This commission reported 
that it was evident that the parties for whom Mr. Mandeville had re- 
ceived money had not all been paid. All his books and papers were put 
into the hands of his successor, Mr. C. S. Sanviuet, who was ordered to 
thoroughly investigate the whole matter and report. After a month's 
labor he reported a list of soldiers who had not been ])aid hy Mr. Man- 
deville, the sum due them amounting to $18,074.34. He was ordered to 
use the amount found in Mandeville's safe ($9,571.05) to pay these men 
as far as it would go. This has been done by him and his successor, 
Colonel Beman, and at this time there is in his hands $123.97 of this 
amount. 

Suit was commenced in the courts of Louisiana against the sureties 
of Mr. Mandeville, and they resist the claim, and the matter is still in 
litigation. 

In the case of any soldiers who have actually been defrauded by 
other soldiers personating them, their claim against tlie Government is, 
of course, good, yet great care has to be taken to prevent a repetition 
of fraud. The death of Mr. Mandeville and his clerk, almost at the 
same time, has embarrassed me in the settlement of some of these Lou- 
isiana claims. I do not think additional legislation would help the sol- 
diers. I shall do all I can for any such man who has really been de- 
frauded. 

Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Major- General, Commissioner. 

Official copy : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- Generah. 



Exhibit M^. 

Headquarters Bureau Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

New Orleans, La., 2Iaij 22, 1SG7. 
Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner, Washington, D. C. : 
General: I have the honor to forward herewith an application of 
St. Clair Mandeville, late major ot cavalry in the volunteer service, for 
appointment as special agent in this Bureau for the settlement and pay- 
ment of bounties allowed discharged colored soldiers, which, together 
with this letter, will be presented by the gentleman himself, who goes 
to Washington with a view of submitting his propositions to you in 
person. 

In aid of the measure nroDosed bv IMajor Mandeville, I think it proper 



128 

to advise you of the great dissatisfaction existing among discharged 
colored sokliers in consequence of the dehiy in the payment of their boun- 
ties. The excitement existing among them is very great, and furnishes 
a constant source of annoyance, and is one of the disturbing elements 
that nourishes the spirit of discontent now prevalent in this city. 

The last adopted method of notifying claim-agents that claims have 
been allowed, and the amount, after deducting fees, «&c., held in the 
hands of the major-general, Commissioner at Washington, does not 
appear to be understood by the claimants. They express a distrust in 
the claim-agents, and charge them with an attempt to defraud and 
swindle them ; and so intense has this feeling become, that some of these 
claim-agents have been threatened with violence by their clients if some 
speedy measures are not adopted for the payment of their claims. 

In connection herewith I beg leave to submit for your consideration 
the following propositions, which present themselves to me, viz: 

There are now on file in Washington about fifteen thousand claims, 
to be paid in this city, under joint resolution of Congress approved 
March 29, 1807. As this law recpiires all payments to be made in cur- 
rency, much more trouble will be occasioned to the disbursing officer 
than if made with checks, and will increase his liability to loss by 
mistakes. This labor, and the labor and responsibility of ascertaining* 
and paying the right claimants, will add materially to the duties of the 
disbursing officer. 

Many of the claimants, since presenting their claims, have changed 
their phices of residence ; many are working on plantations in remote 
parts of the State, and the labor of discovering their addresses and 
notifying them is also added to the duties of the officer making such 
l)aymeuts. In order to effect a setilement of claims of this class now 
on tile in Washington, and made payable in this cit^', it will necessitate 
the identification and payment of over fifty claimants per day for one 
year. 

In view of the foregoing facts, I respectfully suggest the appointment 
of a special agent for the performance of the duties referred to above. 

Major Mandeville, as will be seen from his letter of ai)plication, has 
been associated with the Bureau for upward of two years in ditterent 
capacities, and evinces a desirable familiarity with the duties and 
requirements of this department. In conclusion, I will also state that 
upon inquiry I find him in every respect reliable. 

Should you agree with me in the views I have taken of this matter, if 
consistent with the interests of the Bureau, (since Major Mandeville 
offers to be held in good and sufficient bonds for the faithful perform- 
ance of the duties involved,) 1 would most respectfully recommend that 
he be ai)pointed to the position which he seeks. 

I am, general, with much resi)ect, vour obe<lient servant, 

JOS. A. MOWER. 



Exhibit jS^^ 

New Orleans, La., May 20, 1867. 
Bvt. Maj. Gen. J. A. Mower, 

Astsistant Commissioner of Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Litnds, State of Louisiana : 
Sir: I would respectfully apply for the appointment as special agent 
of the Bureau for the payment of moneys due colored soldiers, &c., in 



129 

this city, in compliance with joint resolution of Congress approved 
March 29, 1867. 

In support of this application, I would respectfully refer to my Array 
record, having beeu mustered out of service as au officer of the Eleventh 
Missouri Cavalry Volunteers in this city, after the close of the war. For 
nearly two years subsequent to this time I have served as an oflQcer of 
the Bureau in this State ; first by appointment of Mr. T. W. Conway as 
engineer of the plantation department, appointment dated August, 
18G5 ; afterwards appointed by General Fullerton as inspector of planta- 
tions, and subsequently appointed by General Baird as agent ; again, in 
October, 186G, by appointment of General Sheridan as special agent, 
which position I retained until February of the present year. 

If, in your consideration, I shall be deemed qualified and competent to 
fill the position for w^hich I have applied, I would with alacrity file with 
you sufficient bonds, with such number of good sureties as you may 
approve and deem sufficient to secure the faithful performance of any 
duty that may devolve upon me. 

I have the honor to remain, very respectfullv, you obedient servant, 

ST. CLAIR MANDEVILLE. 



Exhibit O^. 

May 1 . 
Millie Hobbs, 

Care John F. Thomas, Paducali, Ky. : 
Madam : Mr. Isaac N. Ayers has deposited with me $333, being 
the amount due you as heir of Clay Hobbs, after deducting his fees of 
$15.33. The question is how to get this money to you. Our disbursing 
officer for Kentucky is at Louisville. If there is a national bank at 
your place, please let me know the name of the bank, and the name of 
the cashier, and I will send the amount to him if you so direct. I shall 
be glad to hear from you on the subject. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit P^. 

May 20. 
Albert L. Allbin, 

Box 2815, Saint Louis, Mo. : 
Sir : Your letter of May 10 has been referred to me. In reply I 
would say that the bounty of all colored soldiers is now paid by this Bu- 
reau. The models operandi is this : The Treasury certiticate bears the 
name of the claimant, but is made payable to the Commissioner of this Bu- 
reau. It is sent to the attorney who had the claim in charge, who sends 
it here, where the money is collected. The attorney's fees are adjusted 
here, and the amount sent him, and the balance is paid to the claimant as 
soon as we can find him. I shall arrange for our disbursing officer at 
Saint Louis to pay whatever is to be paid there. But three cases from 
Saint Louis have as yet reached us. Please send me the names, rank, 
and regiment of any soldiers you may know having claims. 
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 
9 H E 



I30 

Exhibit Q^ 

July 18. 

Dr. E. F. SrRFGGS. 

iSiceetirater. Tenn. : 
Dear Doctor : Your letter of July 15 has been received. Ton are 
right in regard to the amount due Anderson Dickey. I sent you $100 
too much by the blunder ot a clerk. I am very much obliged to you 
for your kindness. You can hold the amount until I remit again. In 
relation to the Treasury certificates you write about, please send them to 
me at once, with a statement of fees and advances, and I will have 
them settled at once. If there are advances, make affidavit to them, as 
required by the law. I remember you well fi^om your visit to our head- 
quarters in Lookout Valley, and hope to see you again some time. 
Yours, trulv, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief J>ishursing Officer. 



Exhibit E^ 

Jttly 24. 
E. S. ScRUGas, M. D.. Siceetirater, Tenn. : 

Sir : Your letter of July 20. inclosing five Treasury certificates, has 
been re?eived. Inclosed I send you checks on the assistant tieasurer 
at 2s ew York, to pay the same. I deducted the 8100 overplus sent you 
a few days since from the check of Martha Calston. Please get the par- 
ties to sign the vouchers and return to me. I made out the checks in 
the name of the parties, before I thought of what you wrote before, but 
I think you will have no trouble with them. 

>'o. 477^ Henrv Eowin $290 00 

•• 178. Joseph Adkins 290 00 

" 179. Jerome Brown 290 00 

" 180. Henrv Eogers 318 80 

481. Martha Calston 331 48 



(i 



Total 1, 520 28 

Yerv respectfullv. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief JJishiirsing Officer. 



Exhibit S^ 

ArGUST 10. 
John Wise, DA^■IEL Beach, Wlllia3i Bailey, Colored. 

Pungoteague, Ya. : 
Gez^tlemex : I have this day sent your money to the Treasurer's 
Saviugs-Bauk, at Norlblk. You had better ail go together to get it, so 
as to identify each other. 
Yours, respectfullv. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief JJishiirsing Officer. 



131 

Exhibit T-. 

August 12. 
JA3IES Eedwood, (colored.) 

502 Hurst street, Philadelphia : 

SiE : Tour receipted vouchers for prize-money have beeu received. 
The amouut is so small, that to save you the expense of sending by ex- 
X)ress, I have thought best to send you my check, Xo. 567, on assistant 
treasurer at Xew York, for $0.78, to pay the amount due you. Get your 
attorney, Mr. Devitt, or some one else, to step into some bank with you, 
so as to identify you. This will enable you to get the money without 
trouble. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadiei'- General and Chief Disbursing Officer, 



Exhibit U^ 

August 15. 
]\raj. J. E. Ee^llxgtox, Norfolk, Va.: 

Sir : I inclose you herewith vouchers in duplicate for ten bounty 
claimants, whose claims are settled. As fast as you can identify any of 
them, please obtain their signatures and return the vouchers to me, and 
I will return checks on assistant treasurer at Xew York in payment. 
Mr. Tourtulott had several vouchers and money to pay them when he 
resigned, which it has been ordered to transfer to you. I have no par- 
ticular instructions to give, only to be very sure and pay the right man. 
I am very sorry to hear that the reputation of some of tb.- colored 
people about Xorfolk for truth and veracity is as bad as their white 
brethren, and that there is danger of our being imjiosed upon. 
I am. very respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Bisburising Officer. 



Exhibit T-. 

August 22. 
Bvt. Maj. A. Coats, Veteran Beserve Corps, Seichern, X C. : 

Sir : Yours of August 20 is received. The act of March 29 does not 
fix any rule by which we can fix any standard of identification. It sim- 
ply says it shall be satisfactory. Your own plan seems to be as good 
as any that can be devised. The possession of the soldier's discharge is 
certainly prima facie evidence that the bounty belongs to him. After 
using all possible care on your part as an agent of the commission, if you 
should by some accident pay the wrong party, you could not be held 
responsible, especially after iudorsing the payment on the discharge. 
1 am. yerv respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH. 
• Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



132 

Exhibit W^ 

August 26. 
Nathan Eitter, Charleston, S. C. : 

SiR>: I seud you voucbers iu duplicate for 78 bounty cases. Please 
get them signed and return to me as fast as possible, when I will send 
you drafts on New York to pay the same. When you return any of 
these vouchers be careful to state that you have not received the money, 
so that they will not get mixed up with those for which checks have 
been sent yon already. 

KespectfuUy yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit X^ 

September 4. 
Mrs. Maria Blair, Eddyville, Ky. : 

Madam: I herewith inclose to you my check, No. 766, on assistant 
treasurer United States at New York, for one hundred ninety -nine and 
Y^^ (199.71) dollars, the amount of bounty due yon. 

i send it to you, instead of Mr. Littlefleld, to save you expense. Mr. 
Littlefield will assist yon in getting money on your check. 
I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit Y^. 

September 5. 

Moses Livermore, 

Of 36th Regiment, Murfreesborough, N. C: 
Sir : Your letter of the 22d ultimo is received. I herewith inclose to 
you my check. No. 777, on assistant treasurer United States, at New 
York, for two hundred and ten and j'^'^ (210.50) dollars, the amount due 
you as bounty, &c. You are advised to take the check to Brevet Capt. 
A. W. McKillop, agent, at the Freedmen's Bureau, at Murfreesborough, 
and he will assist you in the matter. 

1 am, very respectfully, vour obedient servant. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit Z*. 

September 6. 
Nathan Eitter, Esq., 

Cashier Freedman^s Savings-Bank, Charleston, S. C: 
Sir : Your letter of September 3, 1867, transmitting receipts of Isaac 
Parker and Flurney Bryant, has been received, as well as the list of 
'inpaid claims in your hands, for which checks have been sent you. It 
IS desirable to get these vouchers that have lain so long as soon as it 
can be done. I inclose you the oath of identity of Jackson Burse. You 
can keep them all if you wish, as we do not use them. 
Eespectfully yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



133 
Exhibit A^ 

September 9, 1867. 
H. C. Percy, Cashier and Agent, NorfoJli, Va. : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you draft No. 1 on Freedman's Savings and 
Trust Company for $303.70, to pay the following claimants, whose 
receipts I have received : 

Maria Howell $97 00 

Thomas Parker 206 70 

♦ 

Total . . _ 303 70 

In the case of Bristor Harris, Company F, 2d Cavalry, all I can say 
is, that the " stealer," or the man himself, was paid at this oflflce June 
3. The man paid was the same man for whom Wolf & Hart prosecuted 
the claim, (right or wrong.) I don't see that the man has any claim on 
any one but the stealer, if he can be found. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. "Brig, Gen. and Chief Dishursing Officer. 



Exhibit B\ 

Septeiniber 14, 1867. 
H. C. Percy, Cashier Freedman's Savings Banic, Norfolk, Va. : 

Sir : On your list of September 9 appears the name of Temple Cole- 
man, Company G, 2d Cavalry. This name was forwarded by you June 
22, and the voucher was sent you, with others, (in all 64,) June 26, and 
the amount included in check No. 333 for $9,381.91. As this voucher 
does not appear on my cash-book, I presume it was returned by you 
with the amount unpaid. Please let me know what the facts are in the 
case. If you have returned me the money, I wish to send the voucher 
again. 

Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bwt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit C^ 

September 19, 1867. 
Albert L. Aubin, Saint Louis, Mo. : 

Sir: Your letter of September 15 is received. By the decision of the 
Second Comptroller, the only parties that we can recognize in regard to 
feesandadvancesarethe "attorneysof record," who would be, in the case 
referred to, Wetmore & Co. Any decent claimants would be willing, I 
should think, to pay you the small notarial fee due j^ou, after Colonel 
Seely had explained it to them. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



134 
Exhibit D^ 



October 2, 1867. 



Bvt. Lt. Col. F. A. Seely, Saint Louis, Mo. : 

Sir : Your letter of September 28 is at band. I consider it no viola- 
tion of tbe law for you to deposit money on tbe order of a claimant, to bis 
credit, in any bank be may designate, after you bave bis signed receipts 
in your bands. It strikes me as a very safe way to make payments. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit E^ 

October 4, 18G7. 
W. R. Taylor, Esq., Farmington, Mo. : 

Sir : Your letter of September 30, witb vouchers for fees and advances 
in tbe case of Sandy Taylor, bave been received. I cannot settle tbe 
claim as you wisb. Tbe only way for you to do is to bave Sandy sign 
tbe voucbers in bis bands, and send tbeni to me, and I will send bis 
cbeck to bim in your care. This will enable you to get jour pay. 
Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit F^ 

October 25, 18G7. 
Thomas Pacy, (eolorec},) -Yo. 17, South Ninth Street, Philadelphia : 

Sir : Your receipted voucbers bave been received. Inclosed I return 
you my cbeck No. 1190 on assistant treasurer at New York, for $1,023.36, 
to i^ay you tbe balance due you. 
Respectfullv, yours, 

GEO. VV. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen., Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit G^ 



November 4, 1867. 



Maj. Gen. Jos. A. Mower, New Orleans, La. : 

General : Tbe inclosed letter of St. Clair Mandeville explains itself. 
Tbe money due Lewis Brown, deceased, can be paid to bis widow, as I 
bave bis receipts for it. Have you any person in view to recommend 
to fill Mr. Mandeville's place ? How would tbe casbier of tbe Freed- 
man's Savings Bank do ? We use tbem in several otber places witb good 
success. Let me know wbat you tbink of tbe plan. It will be a difficult 
matter, I fear, to get as good a man as Mandeville was. 
I am, very respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



135 
Exhibit H^ 

nove^iber 9, 18g7. 
Gen. N. Brewer of Ino, Annapolis, Md. : 

Sir: Your letter of November 8 is received. In reply would say 
that the law does not allow me to recognize anj' " order, transfer, or 
assij»unient whatever." I understand the claimant is in the State prison 
at Baltimore. Is this a fact ! If so, I will make arrangements to 
pay him, and I think I shall have no difficulty in retaining the amount 
of your order. At any rate, I will do what I can personally to get the 
money. 

Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit P. 

November 11, 1867. 
Thomas Preston, (colored,) 3£iddleport, Ohio : 

Sir: I have received your receipted vouchers for balance of bounty 
due you, and send you my check. No. 1303, on assistant treasurer at New 
York, for $88.50 to pay the same. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit J^ 



November 12, 1807. 



Capt. Samuel I. Wricjht, Baltimore^ Md. : 

Sir : I send you my check. No. 1307, on assistant treasurer at New 
York, for $139.50, to pay the balance due James T. Scott, Company G, 
Nineteenth CJnited States Colored Troops. You will find him in the 
penitentiary. I have his order to paj" his attorney. General Brewer, of 
Annapolis, $50 ; but I cannot do it until I get his signature for full 
amount. He may wish to put the balance in the savings-bank, until his 
term is up. Please attend to this at once, so I can finish the matter up. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit K- 



November 26, 1867. 



J. B. CooNZ, Agent, Nashville, Tenn. : 

Sir : Your letter of November 23, in relation to the identification of 
claimants, has been received. You have been so successful that 1 really 
don't feel like prescribing any fixed rule for you to go by, but am satis- 
fied to let you use your own judgment. As a physician would not pre- 



136 

scribe the same medicine to every patient, so a general rnle would not 
tit all cases in paying bounties. I would not wish to put the parties to 
any unnecessary expense, but, in order to secure yourself, you should 
be sure, no matter what it costs. As I said at the beginning, "use your 
own good judgment, and I shall be satisfied." I will, from time to time, 
send you a list of all the "scattering cases in the State," as I did a few 
days since. You can have all the intelligence in your bauds. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit L= 



November 29, 1867. 



H. C. Percy, CasMer, JS^orfoIJq Va. : 

Sir : I inclose you vouchers and discharges in the following bounty 
cases : Henry Taylor and Abraham Smith, both of Company B, Second 
Artillery. Both the men owe Mr. 0. C. Brown $50, as I learn, and the 
notes are in your hands. It seems to be an honest claim, and he let 
them have the money in good faith, not knowing but what it could be 
stopped as an advance. When you pay these men you may retain this 
amount for him, giving up the notes to the men. I believe there are a 
few more of the same sort, which Mr. Brown will give you. You may 
do the same by them. This is a special case, and cannot be construed as 
a precedent, and Mr. Brown so understands it. 
EespectfuUv, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer, 



Exhibit M^. 

December 2, 1867. 
D. L. Smoot, Esq., Alexandria, Va. : 

Sir : I have received your letter of November 28, in relation to claim 
of Raleigh Butler. This claim is not settled yet. Can you tell me 
what the name of the attorney is who has it? The law does not allow 
me to recognize any order or transfer, but 1 will keep your order, and 
when the case comes up for payment, will do all I can to get it for you. 
The only trouble will be I may overlook it. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit N^ 

December 6, 1867. 
Washington Gassoway, Charles Heston, (colored,) 

Kardinsburgh, Ky. : 
I have received your receipted vouchers, and inclose you my checks 
on assistant treasurer at New Y'ork, as follows, to pay you : No. 1470, 



^Z7 

Washington Gassoway, $189.25; No. 1471, Charles Heston, $188,75. 
These checks cau be collected at auy national liauk at a small discount, 
by being indorsed by you and by you identifying yourselves to the cashier. 
Any merchant in your region that does business in Louisville ought to 
take them at a small discount. 
Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Bisbnrsing Officer. 



Exhibit O^ 



December 19, 1867. 



N. E. ScovEL, C'Cishier, Beaufort, S. C. : 

Sir : Mr. R. G. Holmes, of Beaufort, called to see me to-day. He 
says quite a number of colored men whose claims are being settled, are 
owing him for supplies furnished them. *Auy arrangement that he may 
make for them to help him get his bills when you pay the parties, will 
not be objected to if it is made with the full consent of the colored man. 
Officially we can do nothing, but privately it is no harm to help him, if 
you can do it with the consent of the parties. 
Respectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Dishursing Officer. 



Exhibit P^. 

January 11, 1868. 
Bvt. Col. Ben. P. Runkle, Louisville, Kij. : 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your letter of 
January 7th, inclosing drafts for $85, and vouchers of Washington 
Lockett, reported dead. I have also received the letter of same date, 
inclosing a letter from Colonel Eaton to Mr. Burkholder. The colonel, 
in his anxiety to help the bank, overshot the mark a little, but no harm 
was done. I think you can manage the matter with Mr. Burkholder 
so as to give him a chance to get as much of the money on tleposit as 
possible, in this way. Suppose, when a claimant comes for his money, 
you give him an order to Mr. Burkholder, (like one inclosed,) and at the 
close of business every day, take up these personal orders and give Mr. 
Burkholder a check on the depository for the whole amount of such 
orders paid during the day. It seems to me this would accomplish the 
desired end, and not violate any law. 
Respectfullv, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit Q^ 



January 15, 1868. 



Bvt. Col. Ben J. P. Runkle, Louisville, Ky. : 

Sir : I inclose you my check, No. 114, on assistant treasurer at New 
York, (I had not time to get Louisville check,) for $380, to pay bounty 



due Charles Williams and George Wilson as per vouchers inclosed. 
They live at Havvesville, as will be seen bj' inclosed letter. I don't know- 
how many agents we have in Kentucky nowj hence I send them to you. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. B ALLOC H, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit E^. 



February 5. 1868. 



C. S. Sauvinet, Cashier, New Orleans, La. : 

Sir : I have just received the copies of Mr. Mandevilie's cash and 
record book. Will examine as soon as possible. Gen. Sewall seems 
to think that the Government is responsible. In this opinion he is mis- 
taken. What the Commissioner may do I cannot tell. He will decide 
upon something when Gen. Sewall makes his report. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit S^ 

October 3, 1868. 
JameS M. Fidler, Esq., Lebanon, Ky. : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you check No. 406, on depositary at Louisville, 
for $188.50, to pay Alexander Brown, whose vouchers I have received. 
As the attorney fees, $11.50, have been paid IngersoU. I could not 
take out the amount of your note as an advance and return it to you, so 
that you can get your pay from him. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit T^ 



October 12, 1868. 



P. A. LuTHERBURG, Esq., Onancoclc, Va. : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you my check No. 427, on depositary at Bal- 
timore, for $88.50, being amount due Peter Idley, as per voucliers re- 
ceived. The "latees" have not yet been received ; presume they will 
come in due time. I am under many obligations to you for your kind- 
ness, and will satisfy you in some more substantial manner. Every 
time I eat one, I shall think of Onancock, as a land flowing with milk 
and honey. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



139' 

Exhibit U^ 

July 22, 1869. 
Eeason Grubb, (colored,) Lincoln, III. : 

Sir: Inclosed I send you my check, No. 6189, on the assistant 
treasurer at New York, for $90 to pay bounty due you as per your 
receipts received. Your discharge is also inclosed. 
EespectfuUy, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit Y^'. 

July 29, 1869. 
Joseph and Sarah E. Price, (colored,) Indianapolis, hid. : 

I send you my checks on the assistant treasurer at New York, to 
p.'iy you for bounty due you as heirs of Isaac Price, as per your receipts 

No. 6335, Sarah E. Price, $83.93; No. 6336, Joseph Price, $83.93. 
EespectfuUy, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit W^ 

August 9, 1869. 
Marcellus Costello, (colored,) 

{Care A. ^. Cushman, New Bedford, Mass. :) 
Sir : Inclosed I send you my check No. 6435, on the assistant treas- 
m-er at New York, for $11.40, to pay bounty due you, as per your receipts 
received. 

EespectfuUy, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit X^. 

August 12, 1869. 
Col. D. P. EuNKLE, Disbursing Officer, Louisville, Ky. : 

Sir : Yours of August 9 has been received. Hereafter I will send 
drafts on New York instead of Louisville, to pay bounties with. As 
you have such a large lot of claimants, I could not send individual checks. 
Besides, the law will hardly warrant it, (although I sometimes do it,) and 
in such a State as Kentucky we must keep pretty nearly right. Your 
own checks on New York will no doubt be good anywhere in the State. 
If you have any vouchers in your hands for claimants that you have 
reason to believe are dead, or will never be heard from, you had better 
send them back to me, and thus free your office from as much " dead- 
wood " as possible. 

EespectfuUy, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



I40 

Exhibit Y^ 

June 10. 
Capt. Ira H. Trask, Company I, Ninth Cavalry, Fort Quitman, Texas : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you the following checks on the assistant treas- 
urer at New York, to pay bounties due the following claimants, as per 
their receipts received : 

9481. John Parker $187 50 

9482- Felix Olivia 56 20 

In relation to Parker's case, I think the Second Comptroller holds 

that bounty granted a soldier for a previous enlistment cannot be holdeu 

for any deficiencies on account of his present service. As long as you 

have the means in your hands, you can do whatever is right in the case. 

Yours, respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit Z^. 

December 10, 1870. 
Reuben A. Hinley, Esq., Damascus, Md. : 

Sir : Your letter of December 7, inclosing bounty- vouchers of Eliza- 
beth Gibbs, mother of Henry Turner, late of Company E, Twenty-third 
Colored Troops, with her power of attorney in your favor, has been re- 
ceived. I inclose herewith my check, No. 2454, on the Treasurer of the 
United States, to your order, for $75.36, to pay the same. 
Yours, respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig, Gen. and Chief Dishursing Officer. 



Exhibit A*. 

December 31. 
Amos Pillsbury, Esq., Warden Albany Penitentiary, Albany, W. Y. : 

Sir : I inclose a set of bounty- vouchers in favor of Robert Banks, (col- 
ored,) late of Company G, Twenty-third Colored Troops, who is now serving 
out a sentence in your institution. Please have him sign the same, have 
bis signature witnessed, and return to me for payment. He owes a gen- 
tleman here $58.25, which I will pay and either send the balance to you 
to deposit for him or I will deposit it for him in the Freedmen's Savings 
Bank here and send you the deposit-book, just as he wishes. 
Yours, respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit B^. 

Jackson, Miss., April 16, 1873. 
Geo. W. Balloch: 

My Dear General : Your very kind favor came to hand some time 
ago, and I delayed answering until I could do so in a more satisfactory 



141 

way than I was able to do at the time I receivert it. I placed funds in 
the hands of Hon. H. P. Jacobson, United States district attorney, a 
few days ago to close my account with the Department. He informed 
me to-day that he had notified the authorities that your presence here 
would not be required. He leaves here in a few days for Washington, 
and, at my special request, will call and see you. Now, my dear gen- 
eral, I desire to thank you most earnestly for the uniform kindness you 
have always shown me. Your friendship will always be held in grateful 
remembrance. There are some things in relation to my business with 
the Department I wish to explain to you in person, and will call on 
you in Washington some time in next month for the purpose of doing 
so. Again thanking you for your kindness, and asking pardon for my 
delay in writing you, 

I remain, with great respect, your friend, 

O. C. FEEXCH. 



Exhibit C*. 

List of claimants ichose money is reported to be in the hands of 0. C. French, agent of the late 
Freedmen's Bureau, at yatchei, Sliss., though shown by the records of that Bureau to have 
been paid to them on the dates stated. 



Name of soldier. 



Name of payee. 



Amoant. 



Voucher. 



Date. 



No. 



Angerton, D 

Burse. Jim 

Ballinger, William 

Brown, William 

Baker, Samuel , 

BateH, James 

Claiborne, Ennels Brown 

Brown, George 

Chamberlain, Reed 

Chamlierlain, Luke 

Davis, Solomon 

Frazier, Page 

French, Louis 

Franklin, Edward - 

Givings, Allen , 

Green, John 

Gillem, Melvin 

Heron, Jackson 

Johnson, Thomas 

Johnson, Sylvester 

Lanca>t<'r, Lymus 

Logan, Andrevr 

Martin, Edmund 

Mar.-hall, O^car 

Mc Adams, Sandy 

Piercefield, Frank , 

Kaum, Rodney 

Steward, Johnson , 

Shelton, Shadrick , 

Smith, Harrison 

Scott, Shelby , 

Winston, Frank* 

Woods, Henry , 

Warner, Clay 

Watson, George 

Williams, W'Uliam , 

Walker, Samuel 

Yates, Allen 

Edwards, James 



Mariah, widow . 
Peter, father 



John, guardian 

Cath. Claiborne, sister .. 



Kitty, widow... 
Malissa, widow . 
Rosana, widow , 
Phillis, mother. 



Catharine, widow . 



Isabella, widow 

Alfred and Johana, parenti). 

Julia Ann, widow 

Lucy, widow 

Patsey, widow 

Agnes, widow . 



Minnie Heatley, sister 

Eli, father 

Frederick Reed, guardian . . 



Samuel, father. 



Mllly, widow . 



Malissa, widow . 



49 

64 

58 

58 

52 

6H. A. 

98 

50 

6H. A. 

6H. A. 

58 

6H.A. 

48 

50 

70 

6H. A. 

66 

66 

49 

58 

5H. A. 

53 

51 

50 

70 

66 

66 

50 

6H. A. 

6H. A. 

6H. A. 



58 

70 

4Cav. 

50 

70 

70 

96 



$287 00 
329 49 

113 90 
107 93 
295 16 
132 20 
170 76 
223 87 
117 83 

91 83 
100 56 
126 29 
238 50 
228 16 
189 00 
192 50 

88 50 
234 98 

120 43 
97 16 

209 23 
231 80 

72 26 
142 79 
165 62 
191 40 
246 03 
240 37 
141 27 
187 00 
290 00 

37 62 

114 10 
187 75 
287 50 

210 63 
189 00 

89 92 

121 20 



June 10, 
....do .. 
....do -. 

Nov. 28, 
June 10, 
April 27, 
June 10, 
Sept. 12, 
Aug. 21, 
. . . do . . 
July 5. 
May 16, 
June 10, 
....do -. 
....do .. 
Aug. 24, 
....do .. 
June 10, 
....do .. 
July 19, 
Aug. 24, 
Mar. 24, 
Sept. 12, 
June 10, 
Sept. 12. 
June 10. 
Aug. 24, 
June 10, 
Dec. 14, 
Sept. 12, 
June 10, 
Feb. 15, 
July 19, 
Juue 10, 
July 15, 
Juue 10. 
Feb. 15, 
July 15, 
Jan. 21, 



1871 



173 
166 
145 

1870 ; 644 

1871 143 
1871 I 557 
1871 , 144 
1871 164 
1871 : 293 

1 294 

1871 ! 5 

1870 ' 587 

1871 I 149 
148 



1 180 

1871 295 
285 



1871 : 141 
I 168 



1871 290 
1871 296 
1871 483 
1871 147 
1871 164 
1871 J 158 
1871 ' 147 
1871 I 291 
1871 ! 167 

1870 I 283 

1871 j 151 
1871 I 181 
1870 929 

1870 503 

1871 177 

1870 : 424 

1871 I 142 
1870 931 

1870 419 

1871 402 



• U. S. S. Lexington. 



142 
Exhibit D\ 

[General Orders No. 90.] 

Headquarters Department of 
Virginia and North Carolina, 
In the Field, Va., Augtist 4, 1864. 

The recruitment of colored men as soldiers, to be counted in tlie quo- 
tas of the several States, is a settled rule of action by the Government. 

There are untilled regiments in this departnu^nt sufficient to absorb 
all the colored men in the department, not otherwise in the military 
service. Most of the colored men, of age for military duty, have either 
helpless parents or families dependent upon them, who, iu the absence of 
the labor of the soldier, must be supported by tlie Government, directly 
from the Treasury. 

All the States ])rovide in some form by law, either as " State aid '" or 
by bounties, for the families of their soldiers, or, at worst, they must be 
supported in county or State almshouses. 

This burden of supporting the families of colored soldiers, by the act 
of enlisting men in this department, is thrown directly upon the United 
States, whose wards and charge, by the action of the war, the negroes 
have become. 

The military administration of this department, in enlisting colored 
recruits, has heretofore undertaken to see to it that their families shall 
not suffer, and this aid is thus made a part of the pay of the soldier. 
But these soldiers have enlisted without {)cHinty. 

Now, however, the States enlist the recruit and throw the burden, 
which ought to have been borne by themselves, upon the United States, 
and are at the same time paying large bounties to the enlisted man, and 
in some cases, iu fact, buying him as a substitute. 

What guarantee shall the United States have for the good of tlie ser- 
vice of the recruit obtained by large rewards, or that his family shall 
be provided for hereafter i 

To show that this is no inconsiderable a matter, it is necessary to recur 
to a few statistics seen in the rej)ort of the superintendent of negro 
affairs in this department. There are now 71,253 negroes in this de- 
j)artment, of which 20,457 draw rations, in whole or iu part, from the 
Government, of which one-third (^) are in the families of colored soldiers, 
8,343 of whom have been enlisted in this Department. 

By a wise regulation the bounties paid by the Government to white 
soldiers have been i)ut in installments, to assure — 

1st. That a recruit shall not be swindled out of his bounty by the 
broker, as only one-third {^) is paid when he can get hold of it. 

2d. That the whole bounty shall not be paid if not fairly earned by 
the soldier •, and, 

3d. To enable the soldier to provide for his family by payments, from 
time to time, of the installments of bounty. 

All this is lost by the system of recruitment of the negroes for the 
State quotas. 

With all the guards which the utmost vigilance and care have thrown 
around the recruitment of white soldiers, it is a fact, as lamentable as 
true, that a large portion of the recruits have been swindled of part, if 
not all, of their bonnties. Can it be hoped that the colored man will be 
better abk^ to protect himself from the intinite ingenuity of fraud than 
the white f 

Therefore, to provide for the families of the colored recruits enlisted 



143 

in this department ; to relieve tlie United States, as far as may be, from 
the burden of supporting the families, and to insure that at least a por- 
tion of tlie bounty paid to the negro shall be received for his use and 
that of his family : 

It is ordered : > 

I. That upon the enlistment of any negro recruit into the service of 
the United States for three (3) years, by any State agent or other per- 
son not enlisting recruits under the direct authority of the War Depart- 
ment, a sum of one hundred (100) dollars, or one-third {^) of the sum 
agreed to be paid as bounty, shall be paid, if the amount exceeds three 
times that sum, into the hands of the superintendent of recruiting, or 
an officer to be designated by him, and in the same proportion for any 
less time; and no mustering officer will give any certificate or voucher 
for any negro recruit mustered into the service of the United States, so 
that he may be credited to the quota of any State, or as a substitute, 
until a certificate is filed with him that the amount called for by this 
order has been paid, to the satisfaction of the superintendent of re- 
cruiting of the district wherein the recruit was enlisted ; but the mus- 
tering officer will, in default of such payment, certifyupon the roll that 
the recruit is not to be credited to the quota of any State, or as a sub- 
stitute. 

II. The amount as paid to the superintendent of recruiting shall be 
turned over, on the last day of each month, to the superintendent of 
negro affairs, to be expended in aid of the families of negro soldiers in 
this department. The certificates filed with commissary of musters will 
be returned to said superintendent of negro affairs on the first day of 
every month, so that the superintendent nu y vouch the accounts of the 
superintendent of recruiting, for the amounts received by him. 

And the superintendent of negro affairs will account monthly to the 
financial agent of this departnjent for the amounts received and expend- 
ed by him. 

III. As there are unfilled colored regiments in this department, suf- 
ficient to receive all the negro recruits therein, no negro male person 
above the age of sixteen (16) years shall be taken out or attempted to 
be taken ont of this department, either as a recruit, as officer's servai^, 
or otherwise, in any manner whatever, without a pass from these head- 
quarters. Any oiticer, master of tiansportation, provost marshal, or 
person, wiio shall aid, assist, or permit any male negro of the age of 
sixteen (16) years or upward to go out of this department, in contra- 
vention of this order, will be punished, on conviction thereof before the 
provost court, by not less than six (6) months' imprisonment at hard 
labor, under the superintendent of prison labor, at Norfolk, and if this 
offense is committed by or with the connivance of any master of steam- ' 
boat, schooner, or other vessel, the steamboat or other vessel shall be 
seized and sold, and the proceeds paid to the superintendent of negro 
affairs, for the use of the destitute negroes supported by the Govern- 
ment. 

IV. The several recruiting rendezvous in the department will be 
camps of instruction and discipline. 

Kecruits will be instructed, during their continuance in camp, in the 
school of the soldier and of the couq)any ; and will be forwarded, from 
time to time, upon requisitions, to such regiments as they may be or- 
dered. Weekly reports will be made to these headquarters, by the 
superintendent, of the number of men in camp fit for duty, and the 
States to which they are credited. 



144 

Whenever details are made to join regiments, the men longest in camp 
will be sent. 

Officers will be detailed, from time to time, npon application to these 
headquarters therefor, for the purpose of instructing these recruits. 
By command of Miy. Gen. B. F. Butler : 

E. S. DAVIS, 
Major and Assistant Adjutant- General 
Official: 



Captain and Aide-de-Catnp. 



Exhibit E*. 

Washington, D. C, October 2, 1872. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War : 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your com- 
munication of September 23, in which I am directed to transfer at once 
to the Adjutant-General of the Army all fees retained and unpaid sus- 
pended or unlicensed attorneys, with detailed statements, &c. 

I inclose herewith certificate of deposit No. 5196, for the sum of 
$2,867, with the Treasurer of the United States, that being the total 
amount remaining in my hands. 

The balance of these fees, so retained, has been paid from time to 
time to the attorneys, when restored to piactice by competent authority, 
or to the i3ersous from whose bounties the same had been retained, 
upon their furnishing evidence that they had paid their attorneys them- 
selves. 

I inclose, also, a list giving the name and post-office address, as far as 
known, of each attorney, with the amount due each. I am unable to 
give the full details, as you desire. I left in the Freed men's Bureau, 
when relieved, a record-book, which shows everything relating to these 
matters. I jiresume this book is now in the War Department. I kept 
fl8r my ow-n information the amounts unpaid, as shown, by this list. 

As these fees i)ertain to cases paid by me, and which my successor 
had nothing to do with, I was informed by officers of the Treasury De- 
partment engaged in settling my bounty accounts, that it was perfectly 
proper for me to retain them in my hands until such accounts were set- 
tled, and then make such disposition of them as I might be directed. 
These fees were not considered as public funds, but as private funds, 
belonging either to the attorneys, or the bounty-claimant, and held in 
trust by me for them, until the question was settled as to whom the 
money belonged. 

I am, very respectfully, &c., 

GEO. W. BALLOCH. 



145 
Exhibit F*. 

List of suspended and unlicensed attorneys, having fees in my hands retained from bounties 
of colored soldiers, tvith the amounts due each. 



Name. 


Residence. 


Amount. 


Remarks. 






$415 50 
195 50 
314 00 
115 00 
69 00 
200 50 
57 50 
152 00 
207 00 
103 50 
664 50 
120 00 
161 00 
11 50 
23 00 
11 50 
11 50 
11 50 
23 00 










Hull, George W 






Wilson. J. T 


Norfolk, Va 




WBtson, J V 








Norfolk Va 










O'Brien, T. M 










Dead. 








Fisher, C.B 






















Dead.* 


McCann, R. B ..'. 




Dead.* 








McGowan J. T E 






Graham, Staff 


















Total 


2, 867 00 











* These parties were not suspended, but died, and the amounts were held for their heirs. 
The residence of these attorneys is given from memory, but it is thought to be correct. 

G.W. BALLOCH. 



Exhibit G*. 

Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen A-Nd Abandoned Lands, 
Office Disbursing Officer and Quartermaster's Agent, 
No. 206 Saint Charles Street, New Orleans, 

October 28, 1869. 
Mr. Wm. p. Drew, 

Chief of Claim Division Bureau of R.,F. and A. L., Washington^ D. C: 
Sir : In reply to yours of the 23d instant, I have the honor to trans- 
mit herewith savings-bank checklSTo. 47, for $106,20, in favor of General 
Geo. W. Balloch, being amount due on vouchers in favor of Louisa 
Briggs, widow of Austin Briggs, private Company K, Eighty-fourth 
United States Colored Troops. 
Please acknowledge receipt of the same. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDGAK C. BEMAN, 
Brevet Lieutenant- Colonel and Disbursing Officer. 

[Indorsed.] 

War Department, B. R., F. and A. L., Claim Division, 

Washington, November 3, 1869. 
Respectfully referred to Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief 
disbursing oflicer, inclosing check described within, and requesting ac- 
knowledgment of the receipt of the same, and the return of this paper. 

WILLIAM P. DREW, 
Agent B. R., F. and A. L., Chief of Claim Division. 
10 h E 



146 

War Department, Bureau E., F. and A. L., 

Noveiuher 3, 1869. 

Eespectfully returned ; receipt of cbeck hereby acknowledged. 

GEO. W. B ALLOC H, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen., Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit H^. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, I). C, Kovemher 1, 1873. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau E., F. and A. X., Washington, JJ. C: 

General : I have the honor to inform yon that this Office is in pos- 
session of evidence of non-payment of the claim for bounty, &c., of Al- 
fred Hammond, late private Company K, Ninety-seventh IJnited States 
Colored Troops, voucher in which case, No. 197, of Gen. Geo. W. Bal- 
loch, late chief disbursing officer for the month of December, 1870, was 
filed in the office of the Second Auditor of the Treasury ; said evidence 
consisting of draft No. 2659 of the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Com- 
pany, for 1111.30, payable to the order of the claimant, at Mobile, Ala., 
which draft was, under date of December 10, 1870, forwarded by Gene- 
ral Balloch to C. A. AYoodward, cashier Freedmen's Savings and Trust 
Company, at Mobile, Ala., by whom it was returned to the Bureau 
under date of December 1, 1871. 

The draft referred to being payable to the claimant's order, please 
take the earliest x^racticable measures to obtain from the Freedmen's 
Savings and Trust Company the amount, ($111.30,) and ijlace this Office 
in possession of it, in order that provision may be made for payment to 
the claimant without unnecessary delay. Upon receipt of the money 
the draft from the Freedmen's Saving and Trust Company will be re- 
turned. 

Very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 

[Indorsed.] 

Eespectfully returned, having received the draft and presented it to 
the bank of the Freedmen's Savings and Trust Comi)any, the bank re- 
funds the currency, which I have the honor now to. place in the hands 
of Gen. E. D. Townsend, Adjutant-General United States Armv. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Brig. Gen. V. S. A., late Com'r Bureau K., F. and A. L. 
November 8, 1873. 



[Indorsed.] 



Eeceived $111.30. 
November 8, 1873. 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



November 8, 1873, 
O. O. Howard, brigadier-general LTnited States Army, returns Adju- 
tant-General's Office letter of 1st instant, stating that the amount 



147 

($111.30) of Freedmen's Savinofs aud Trust Company's drafts, in favor of 
Alfred Hammoud, Company K, ISTinety-seveuth United States Colored 
Troops, for bounty, being unpaid to claimant, was refunded by said 
company and by him, (General H.,) placed in the hands of the Adju- 
tant-General United States Army, whose receipt is herewith. 



Exhibit I^. 

July 22, 1870. 

J. B. Coons, Disbursing Officer, 

Nashville, Tenn.: 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your communi- 
cations of the 19th instant, returning checks in the following cases in 
which vouchers have been signed, viz : 

Ko. 1160 in favor of Cha's Collins, Company A, Seventeenth 

Colored Troops $168 50 

No. 3160 in favor of Samuel McDonald, Company K, Fif- 
teenth Colored Troops 294 96 

Ko. 3167 in case of Morris Sells, brother of William Harris, 

dead, Company B, Seventeenth Colored Troops 55 71 

You will please keep a complete record in your office of the cases 
above referred to, and in case at any future time it should appear that 
there are any legal heirs living who are entitled to the amounts, you 
will forward their application to this Office, stating date when you re- 
turned the check. • 
Eespectfullv, your obedient servant, 

H. H. EAY, 
For GEORGE W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen, and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit J^ 



May 23, 1871. 



J. B. Coons, Disbursing Officer^ Xashville, Tenn. : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you my check, Xo. 3516, ou the First National 
Bank, Nashville, payable to the order of Charles Collins, late private 
Company A, Fourteenth Infantry, Colored Troops, for the sum of 
•$168.50, as per your request of the 10th instant. 
EespectfuUv, &c., 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bi'f. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



10632] Exhibit K^ 

War Department, 
Washington City, January 2, 1873. 
Gen. George W. Balloch, Washington, D. C. : 

Sir : I have received from the Attorney-General a communication of 
December 19, inclosing copy of letter from the United States attorney 



148 

for the southern district of Mississippi, conceruing the suit against O. C. 
French, late of the Freedmeu's Bureau, and requesting information in 
regard to money sent Mr. French by you while chief disbursing officer 
of the Bureau, a copy of which, and also extract of the report of the 
Adjutant-General thereon, are inclosed for your perusal. 

By direction of the Secretary of War, I have the honor to suggest, in 
connection with the subject of these papers, that perhaps you might 
be able to refresh your memory as to the circumstances connected with 
this claim, by an examinatiou of the late Freedmeu's Bureau records 
now in this Department, which you are at liberty to do for the purpose 
indicated. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

H. T. CROSBY, 

Chief Clerl: 



Exhibit L^ 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, I). C, January 25, 1873. 
Gen. George W. Balloch, 

Late Chief Dishiirsing Opcer, Bureau A\, F. and A. L., Washing- 
ton, D. C: 
Sir: In comj)liance with your request of the 9th instant, I inclose 
herewith a list of claimants whose money is reported to be in the hands 
of O, C. French, late agent, &c., at Natchez, Miss., showing the amount 
due each, together with the date and number of the voucher filed in 
the Treasury Department in each case, as shown by the records of the 
late Freedmeu's Bureau. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. YIXCEIs^T, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



149 



t 






zzx'-*' 










-X. ~. ^. < X — xc;ot; — o 



xt C-. X — f-o-;ot~ — cxTi — r. I-. X — — . 

•.c *^ r» '^ -^ r- f^ t^ '-^ f^ r- f^ — r^ t^ '-^ f— f— f- r— 'C "— — — ^* 'c ■_ _ _ _ — - _ . — , - - - . 

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXT-XXXXXXOO 



: r^ — f- t^ — t- f 



X < X S C S S S X < < •^ -. S ■^ z 4 < C - i^ < -^ Z S S ■? X z 4 



z -.--■=-. i i 2 s z 












!i)-o?it~o — e~. =■- f-j^Xi-oaii.'^'^ot-^t-oS'rxx- 



^c— =-. X/C:— ox'^xx- 



CJ -1 r-, ci cj — --• n — ■ — cj — -• m< s< 






,' I! — '-c t~ "^ f- x3 o ;r. 1- f^ r: n 
; = 5! =-. r- X X X X r? t» r: X — >--2 



« — . — r~ II cj u CI rH cj >-ii-i I- n 



X — ; 






_ . _ - . J -I o -^ — X u-^ — — --c -^ :i o rt r: r-. "^ t^ r: L- H X *-* f^ X o — X K r: -r ?. t^ 

c: — ^ T* '.c f t* "J X T — t* f* 7* r; X ir: — . — tc 7* r: f "* r: = — o r: r; X X r^ ~t — o -r f^ L'; 

— r-. X -.c t^ ir: o -r o « X o = r- •-= -i t- r- X o -^ L': X 7» t~ t~ -r .: — -^ — =-. u- r- o r: —• r: i» -i 



s 






i.i.=.^^!rir'::,::,<;r-.r-:^i,<: 






<:_"5iK<:-<£,os5ia.2o_30Ma«S-,c22 



3x — X — 



z — '•'Z — ii 



< = 



&- 









-~w^ _— ^^^J 

lixx — 55x — ?x^^^ 



-5:.£<<Cii<a<asQs&£, 




=-f-TT'--l= i^ 



I50 



IV a a 

g I H 
M fcD §) 



o t o 

.- — OJ 

-7. CO * 






bo ^ ^ 





o 




cc S t-» .-e >.'S: >^ 


.2f >. 


•i^Sif^-l^ 


j3 Qi^ 3;^ £r^ 


3^ 








a o 5 o 5 -5: 3 


J s 




o &'"' =-o 2 


Saint 
New 

r Ken 
New 

r Ken 
Vick 

r Ken 




a 
'5 


New 
Loui 
Saint 

r Ken 
Vicki 

r Ken 








s «^a *£ 




o cjii o 


O c3 



a g ^ 

§0 tB Sc 5; 5c & So 



- ca -r >> ?, 
«- o-3-j: 
50^20 
c8 ^ 'g a > ' 
> ? 5 u e - 

o a " ~ ^ - 
c "a a c 



• .a! "^ -^ 



5 2^.-5 
o a a; a 



OOQOXaOXaOQOCt)XjQOQOaOX)-COOQOOO'»OOODQO.XOOQtjQOOOQ(jOOOO'30 00C)OODODOOODOOQOaOQOiXaOOO 



• -ti si tii to t: u bi >; a 'E 'C rj -g,^- >■ d ^- ^^ S q. S 

ca!<<'>!SQ<;S>-5<':<&Haj02;QO'T,'^c»>^ 



"o o t- " —■ ; 






ra Co o o 






M t. c5 t; ^ 

3 fi. oj a. u 



OCOOlOCCiO^C^irSOOlOOOOOOC^OiOOOOCiOOOOOOlOi 



c*cococJ'-HXOt-Trir:o(r*oioauoooo:oo'^i. 



• 00 to o o o o o 



• ooajox!U7r-t-ocnQot7^ot»G^oO'-C!; 



c^ <v: t- 00 c 



) — oi^c^icnoccoi^CTjoc^ot^'Xooci^ioot- — ri^Tro^ooooff^occiococ^ooooo 
ir^oiooaojiOo:(aoioooot^oDr^a:QOQOioa>QO'TOO'<TOoaooo<x>roc}X!G'iOL'-j=:oocr:i 



C^CNCi^CJ r^c^c^ 



H,-,r-'i-iG^C-^.-..-,C?Oi 



1 rH Ci C7^ :^ CJ CO CI CC C* CO — 



OCOCOr^O-X"— ■i-OD'^C^vCD — OOCJTplO-VC^COQOO'-^^'-'Tr 



, -■'^Doasosaio^ciQOQDOon 



tC CJ T* TJ — C"* <^ 'X^ O CO to — f^ 10 — •?* 



L'^ 00 iC iC — — ' o 



i^roor-i'^iiOr-cc' 



f 1> J^ t^ CO *^ 'TJ 



LO Oi :0 — O: ' 



? 00 O t^ (^ to L-: O O". f- '^ I 



» OJ r?" X -r t- - 



in^L'^0'^oo»nioiO'^'^irtuO"<**co-<r'T"^'^co^ru^OLO'^^r»oc'i^>raioo»Oic^ir:'3» 









HH' 



; H . &^ <: H ~ H 



2£^m:^£ 

--—---— - --- ■ -OX'C^C^O. . ._ -,__- .-._.-. .-- 



_"dd^d2s7-^2d::^"2idas:^^=^^252^^^2^^^d':^2w^^^ 

— ^^Ja,^.a>OJ2|;^5mT:g^^5au5;J:^oo;5^52SJ:;rTPT>•tccDi35;c3;a~■-- — 



"Wd^d^ 

■2 2 7.5 
io 22 S ~ o 



H<:cc«Doo&<w 



&<OEtii_;cQHfci05<i!!i<MC)P3Oiia5OH 



CQ ec ui h-i Q H a M 



^;SWc5iSo 



■cco-o ^^-ots 



000000 

'3 "O 'O "w 'O "O 



CS o 



o fe4 0"° 
a> -a o £* o 
o * S isi > 

B •-2.3' 
.0,3 a * 

J s £^>:' 

!-•< a a 



a a> 0^ 

— ""E ^ ^ e 
s o "cS a o 
COOOCS 



o a 



■■XX^ 






— he u 



t» 3 a^ t- " j3 o 
!?^P3 gK o S 



0£ O 3 s- 

e £ o SI K 



^ s^ to 
o o « a 



fcr s] 3 tl -^ 



c3 -^ 

|="a 



gQ 



ill I ^-11 1 

^^3.3333.3 
OO^OOOOiO 

1-5 »-» 1-5 i-s i-s i-s i-» '-5 



>^a 



<2 a 
a 

a 3 



a a 
3 3 



sea 
« e-§.a 

3 3 OJ -3 

a a,^ o 
2 2 oT <p 



ss 



^2 



as - 

± X Cfl 

* t: S ■? ® « 

1-»§5a3 



-^ .03^ 

■n-^- i 3 






» p-i ce ce £ " 



■e £ a fe Sb 



151 





i >. 


M^MSt-.'-.^- 


^.« 


m" .-- » S s r^ a s 


a » 


uisvill 
Berne 
uisvill 
vv OH 
int Lo 
entucl 
Orlea 
int Lo 


Of 




Z^ 


■S^ass^^so" 


i'-^^ 


^^-^««-^„-^Q0^-- 


aaasaaaa 


a a 






bDbDtlibDbo^bLtD 


be io 


<<<<<<<< 


<< 



■^ o « . 



:^,- 3 



; -S ^ .0 a- 



S^g* 



J< s a « 

-'*a 
■^ >.«:= ce X 
o -M i; -J ii -^ 
pH s i a i rt 

.tf kjj - — i Li! 



■r. KA -rl 

*bi! ^b.'S'-O^ 



C8 >. 



^ tf -O r% ^ .O 1^ ti 



o^-^-q: 



« s --S o o a ^ c6 "S ts -5 o 6 rt =2 6 CS ^ „ ..J w» „ - a 
aaa aacar- — ^" 



SB'-'-- - 

"' lolll 

cScsO'cjtj'g'S'S 



ho bo tc bo 50 to 

*<■<<; <3 <j ■< 



aaeaaa oaaaa 

bcbo tJDbDbcbobObO bobobobobo 



• O t- O — 00 



rX'QOQOQOQOODXJQOQOXQOQO ODQOQo50QOODa)bOQOaUGCOOQOOOaOODOOQDQUQOCIDOOaOCOGCaoOOQOQOODaOGr'OOGOQOaO 



C — OOt^OiOOXSlC. OiO)— I 



t^t^^i-"t^<r?t^f^i^ 



O — ' t 
00 cc c 



00 r^ c^ CO — Tj> '^ o '^ -g< cj 



•— CC'fff 00 ^H^0O^'C0Q0r^^S'Q0C^a5^0TJ^r— I u^'tT 



? — ^ — • ;:« s -P 



< 01 c 



H-tj«X>— 'Ol^t^OOrHCO— f^C?0 



ojO 






ci ^ ci ^* ^* --^ '-' ^ *=■' c^ ^^ ^^ <^i oi 



to CO CI CO Oi o o r^ ir: 'j; X o 



.-H-tC mirO — OOGOO— '■^OOOO — Oi/OOOOO — OiOCCOOCOlrt'-'OOOOO 

ccoc^^-.-'t'Ooc-iO'-oajoc'Oiocirot^-rcoiocicofct^Traiocooi'^oinoooo 
'^0(TJOj-^triO'-HO^o»cioot^'Xt--Tt"'-o'-^TrooTt«cot-occooof-»noirto^i-^oioo 

r> nrj /-- lt^ 'S .Xj nn ^ f^ f^ QCt 'X. C) nn i"!, •j —-:£; nri .—. -Ti ?n ,« nri r^ rri j-^ - — > n« n-i nr\ ^^ r^ <-ry rr^ 



. - w v.. -._----.■■■ ^■' —■ ^ "•'=■»"• "^ ^~ "^ '-C '-^ ^ 00 Tt« CO t-- o cc 00 o f- »n o irt o^ i-^ oi 00 
CJocr^'Jioxoo^^t^r^oQ'Xoaoxri— ':cooi--.X)CO--<QOOoot>o.c*:co — QDcoQooiCB 

— -* — ^. ^. _ -. -, ^ ^ 7i ^ ^ ^ [jj ^ CO CO CI G^ C< (?^ 



C^ r- C* n-l rO ■ 



cj — lo ^ ro -^ — LO LO uo X — ' 
^' rC o" lo" o' 1 o" co" di 



^^ X o n ?o t^ o t-^ f- r- b"^ I 



i^t — lO "(0 Oi iO CI ^ -- 1^ LO 70 i^ : 

rr ic o» t-- c? -^ X TT ro »o OJ c^ r; : 

CO -^ o" o' CO x" ro* -r -5<" c> rf c' — " - 
x-x — co^-'^-re^tcco^• — rot 

'^LOCOlOlO'^lO'^O'ViOCOTp- 



?— "Ot^OCTiCOCIf^J^COCOiO-^COO'^iO 

: — T^ro-x rrr-, r-— 'co^c — cox'xj'trco'^'^ 
; — 'T/otf— -ft^oo--^^olr:c^'^a!Xd■^<o 
^ or — "" — " o" — 'xTrjT nT-^ -jT lo' co" — ' i-^ of ^ --"^ 
■J r: 'x '-^x :r 'X *~- c; CO LO »r; X o :c ^- cr: CO —• CT) 
fcoLOicco»r5»JOcoroo»oiiOcoin'^-^'<5"iO'V 



CJ no O X '^ O C? lO LO LO Oi -H 

t—icO'—ir-iO"— ■X-£:c;oo^-H 



*-'^X-.-C?LO-H^a)iOO^OO'— ^OaOC■»OO^r2^ri(OlWC-TJ^OCO^•t3TJ«c^/C:X^-'COCC' 
COCI^-f'— ''0'-^--i— t-— ti— (-^--l,— if^.— I— (r-H,— i^HXr-^OOOOrHX^lrtOOaj^O-^rHCDi— I 



pafaoaW««WMtsJp;M HP9fo&<oaas3li:5Qac5od<;wh-<JBqaQ<iOMMP5WiOMs:So!Oo!i 



* ? - 

oqPh 



o o o o o o 



5 

a g I i.- a 



2i. 



S o o 



<«^ 



£ r bD 

=3.2 "o 

^ ^ '^^ 



O O C O O O 
'O "C 'O '^ "O 'C 



y a> a a 



<<:<: 



'=.=M 



'oj 5 H -2 z 



13 



~ C C8 C6 

hl<pH P-(pL| 



■ S «•- * S " a 






t. CC aj n CO 
0) — — O 1-5 

J3 .^■o a .i 



r* > "c -c -o 
S 't, 



-c bo^'U'C'C'C be: 



= '-^.5 .-< 



•- f., a 

— A a 



&^ a 

M C8 



2« 

Is 

S a 



- --*-- a^ 



■g 'a "a a § 



S i:5 -2 = =s 



I 

-2 Hi 



a a -L . 
o o s a « 

lllil 

<» Oi 5 - kT "^ 

•S -^ £• fe » o 

3 S S C g a 



i o '5 
i5>: 



.2 J M a rh "a ^ & 

•-JiiBSO an, 
ca a a^ aQ^Z" 

fc a .a = .a a » - 

ji o j= .3 ^ .5 ji! 3 

^-.x »^ x^ cd*^ 

« — s :a rt .— ^ cc 






152 



•° 5 ® - ti 

•g S .2 >-. § 

« rt a * =2 o 

a a a a a 



'S 


Jan. 14,1870 
Aug. 16, 1867 
Aug. 21, 1868 
June 17,1869 
Oct. 24,1870 
Oct. 14,1870 


a 

3 

o 

a 
< 


$216 50 
215 00 
202 65 
229 60 
187 00 
293 00 


6 
o 


53fi, 4.55 
299, 160 
457, 197 
328, 220 
565, 664 
565, 661 



tHC-t-'ri 



- OJ ?? CO '♦^ +3 



.tax 

t: t: •;: •= .a ja 
■* 03 c^co t: ^ 

CO (» 1— C^ 00 00 



„QK-<!i.pa 



fe S 






"O t- o 



So 



c .i .§ 5 >i.o 






m CO ») CO o I 



! O — ' 



Oi CO 30 CC t~ « f- CC 

00CJ«O--0i'N0-. 
»— CSCTOIC^ — 0000 
rHi—t^OOOC^iXlO 



•ee^ 



b£bcbc&obo&o^t^ 



153 



o 



^ 



i-i 
H 



■ J s 



£ = a 



c d 6 6 c8 =2 s 



* td 



K 



; d d "S <2 ° o 



. w >-■ w OT ;«-( a: *- 5*-t ^ i:' 

a □ c a « u 

0; OJ © a; 1^ OJ 

b£ be ^ &0 CX bo 

<<<C < << 





C3 >, « >,- 


sl 


tuck 

Orle 
tuck 

Loi 


p 


New 
rown 
r Ken 

New 
r Keu 
Saint 


d d d d d ■£ ,2 c 


"S P- ^ d d d d d s <S a d 


3Q0fiQ-_C 


a S a a a a 


a a 






tJ3 to 


be ■— bo be be bo 


<;^ 


<a<; <« 



^o 



l^t^COt^CC'-Cf^CDCOCOtOi^t^^t^t^t^l - - - . _. - - - - - 

oOQoauQOCJoaoooQOQoiDaaQQODaoiXaoooooQCjCOCxjGuacoo^-aoooooaoajosoDccoDQOoo 

__,— — —, — r-H.-^,— r-.— I — rt " "^ "^ ~ " r~ ^r^ r- ^ — ^ " '^^ "", ""1 " " ~ ■"! ". " "^ 

^,r.^ „^TT .1 I o-rof— -i-'oTiri'in CTr-d'Qo'td'ao'~3''-o <o-^rc tc'io'cio'o ic aTrt* ^ to ct< -r f^ <o to to t~ o in oo" 



•pred 
^uno ray 



•8»Bagi}jao 



•Xaedraoo 



't^. 






>>>.u > > ^ 



QOCOOOt*OCCr^O'^00(7*0:=:COOO:C«00«OOOOCOtC^t^OOOOOOir3 



- <o re 5c t^ 00 en 



' Ol CT C: TP r5 Oi o 



'C^COCliOL'^OOCDQOOi'^CO 



oo•^^''C■^oiooo3^0DC»tOw-T.— ocr)Tri^Trx:»o:c — oj^-ot;*;:-^ 



'cecjaoroouroco'-ca;'.Dccc»o — ^-t^oiooDODQocj- 



ai^DOL'^jt^c^OiOCi 



oot- — to»O'»"'-DCTiaitct^-^ait^t-'C0cc'^m 



t-Tj"r-w ^t-r-rccotco 



^CCOO — CCOlCD — 'OCrCOQUCt^O 



f—f^f^Tj-t-iOrr^r-^/CCO'. OiOlOt^TOt—O — o?^ 



iQC^CO'^C^iOlO'^OiOiOOlC^iriOiniQ'^OOO'^iOCeiO'^C^'ViO 






< 

■ ■ 3 

j= E O 



_--i^'--£j-'t;5TtO0O00'2j3-*-C^'trr3+jrH'.3.'2ja 



<! I j i id 



55 

au Qu '^ 



oo>-OQWp;^oo&<QQPa&<bdSaiiafNpqsQUc5t40nH«oofeWQM 



« • — 

bD OJ ^ 
•21UBH 'S S = cc o O C 

to > ^ > -co -c 



n 



g bo ¥ 



a . v^ ■~^ 

&■*: X ™ ^ - 
t- O t- 1' cs rt 



■III 
a'« 

05 V- 

go 

a c ^ 53 ! 
Si: CO ^^ 

f-( _^- jT a " 

3 a5^-a § a a a S 



co'dj'SSococooi.cfioocooo 
■ a! o 'C ; ; ; ; ; ', o'C 

CCOAh OPh 



bD'> . 

5:; ^_>- 



12 a a 



^ 5 > 

5 x.e-1 

oc 2 >•- 
o o a 

■««« ^ J 
2 o o"5 

a -a . o 

>,H^-.a 5 

t- OJ w cfl 
.X 03 fc- »^ v^ .- CO ^ 

■s s :5 3 5 c - i. 



g « a g 



r? ?^^a J- a 



-^ oi ce a; 
a 5 > ^^ _ 

o = 5 .^ -^ ^ == " 



j^ ^ S * 



It? a* .-S 

»> t- iJ ^- bo >^ 

_ •*< :j i: >% be E 

JS^^ > d =e 3^ 



^^ 



3 



I' S 3 5 

c J.Sf 



5iso(2«=g?£^^ 



154 



RECAPITULATION, 

Pagel $3,918 57 

Page 2 -2,8(14 57 

Page 3 1,543 42 

Total 7,326 56 

*Deduct 137 00 

Tot al 7, 1 39 56 



Exhibit 0\ 

State of Kentucky, 

County of Cumberland : 

On this 28th day of September, A. D. 1871, before me, L. A. Wag- 
gener, a county clerk within and for the county and State aforesaid, 
personally came and appeared Eose Kitchey, aged seventy years, a resi- 
dent of the county of Cumberland, in the State of Kentucky, who, being by 
me duly sworn according to law, on oath declares that she is the identi- 
cal Rose Ritchey, the mother to Henry C. Allen, deceased, late a private 
in Company A, One hundred and fifteenth Regiment United States 
Colored Infantry Volunteers, and who, as the mother of said deceased 
soldier, is drawing a pension on pension certificate No. 117513, at the 
rate of eight dollars. She further states that, as the mother of said 
soldier, she is entitled to the bounty and back, pay due him, which, 
as she has learned, has been allowed ; that some months ago one J. T. 
E. McLean, of Columbia, Ky., came to her house and represented to her 
that he was duly authorized and acting agent of Gen. Ben. P. Runkle, 
chief disbursing officer of Kentucky, and presented for her signature 
duplicate vouchers, and which she signed, said McLean representing 
that as soon as said vouchers could be returned to Covington, Ky., her 
money would be sent to her ; that she has never heard anything from it 
since, and as she is now about 70 years and decrepit, and Junable to 
travel about, and no means to travel on, she respectfully asks the hon. 
Second Auditor to issue her checks for the amount due, and send the 
same to her address, Burksville, Ky., to care of A. J. Phelps, postmaster 
at that place, or to give her such direction as will enable her to get her 
money. 

ROSE + RITCHEY. 

luark. 

Attest : 

W. J. Pace. 
O. C. Pace. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of September, in the 
year 1871, and I hereby certify that the affiant is a respectable and 
credible person, and resides as stated ; that I believe her statements are 
correct and worthy of full faith and credit ; that I have no interest in 
this matter. I further certify that the foregoing affidavit was read over, 
fully explained to, and understood by the affiant before the signing and 
executing thereof, and also that the affiant is the identical party repre- 
sented as making the affidavit. 

[SEAL. J L. A. WAGGENER, 

Clerk Cumberland County Court. 



155 

EXH-IBIT P^ 

BuRKSViLLE, Ky., August 21, 1872. 
Mr. J. H. H. Woodward, Louisville, Ky.: 

Dear Sir: You will find inclosed correspondence with Senator Ste- 
phenson and the Bureaii. The matter was set on foot in this way : 
McLean and Green came to this county and got Hose Eitchey to sign 
duplicate vouchers, with the promise that the money should be forth- 
coming in a few days. The parties came to me some time afterward 
and told me the facts and I drew a petition to Congress for Aunt Rose 
and sent same to Governor Stephenson, who did not present it, but 
wrote to the Bureau and gi^^ng facts ; thereupon the letter here inclosed 
you was sent him. I woukl have answered your letter sooner, but have 
sent after Rose Ritchey and Phillip Alexander, both of whom live at 
Horse Cove, to come here. Phillip Alexander was present and knows 
that McLean paid her no money. Mr. R. F. Spencer was also present, 
but could not identify her unless she was present. Hence the delay. I 
learned from S. P. Tayloi", of Horse Cove, that she would come. Several 
darkies report to me that McLean only paid them some $50,' and some 
more and some less. McLean would not consent that I should be i)res- 
ent when he settled with the darkies. The duplicate vouchers of Rose 
Ritchey were witnessed by J. T. E. McLean and T. E. Green, a boy 
about fifteen years of age. The darkies themselves have told me that 
they, as I had made up their claims, would want me present when they 
were being paid off, but McLean would not consent to it. I have never 
got any fees in any of the cases, except what you have paid me out of 
your fee as allowed by the Government. You have a list of the claims 
settled, and if you will send me a copy of it, I will see the darkies and 
find out whether they have had their money paid to them or not. 
Respectful Iv, 

JAMES HAZZARD. 

[Indoi'sement.] 

Rose Ritchey, mother of Henry C. Allen, private Company A, One 
hundred and fifteenth United States Colored Troops, Treasury certifi- 
cate No. 456130, for -$121.69, being pay from January 1, 1865, when last 
paid, to May 9, 1865, time of his death, and -SlOO bounty — act July 4, 
1864. 



Exhibit QK 

'So. 456130. — Approiyriation. 

Bounty per act July 11, 1862 $100 00 

Pay of volunteers ...... = 24 69 

124 69 

Treasury Department, 
Second Auditor's Office, May 8, 1868. 
I certify that I have examined and adjusted the claim of Henry C. 
Allen, deceased, private in Company A, One hundred and fifteenth 
United States Colored Troops, and find there is due him from the United 



156 

States the sum of $124.69, being- for bounty per act of July 11, 1864, 
and pay from January 1 to May 9, 1865, as appears by the account and 
vouchers herewith transmitted for the decision of the Second Comp- 
troller of the Treasury thereon. To l)e paid to Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, 
(for Rose Ritchey, of Marrowbone, Ky., mother of deceased,) or his order, 
by any paymaster in the Army, in the district of the claimant's residence. 

E. B. FRENCH, 

Second Auditor, 
By J. E. LATHROP. 

$124.69.1 Second Comptroller's Office, 

June 13, 1868. 

The above claim of $124.69 is admitted. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Second Comptroller, 
By J. B. MOTLEY. 

Itistructions for making receipt. 

The amount will be filled in, and the receipt must be signed by the 
l)ersou in whose favor the certificate is issued, in the presence of two 
witnesses ; but the paymaster's name and date will be filled in by the 
i;)aymaster at the time of payment. 

Receipt. 

Received this 12th day of April, 1869, from J. Ledyard Hodge, pay- 
master, $124.69, in full of the above. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt, Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer for 

Maj. Gen. 0. 0. Howard, Commissioner, 

Payees. 

(Indorsed :) No. 23. Voucher No. 127. Arrears of pay and bounty 
certificate. No. 456130. $124.69. (Immediately after payment the 
paymaster will notify the Second Auditor of the Treasury, stating when, 
where, and to whom the certificate was paid, giving the number and 
amount.) Bureau R., F. and A. L. Received M. R. 6, 1869. Office 
Chief D. O. Bureau R., F. and A. L. April 2, 1869. Claim Division, 
Paid by check No. 3172, on U. S. Treasury, on April 12, 1869, $46,889.26. 
J. L. Hodge, paymaster U. S. A. 



Exhibit R*. 

[General Court-Martial Orders No. 7.] 

War Department, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, January 16, 1873. 
I. Before a general court-martial which convened at Louisville, Ken- 
tucky, August 1, 1872, pursuant to Special Orders No. 146, War Depart- 
ment, Adjutant-General's Office, Washington, June 25, 1872, and of 
which Col. F. F. Flint, Fourth Infantry, is president, was arraigned 
and tried : 

Maj. Benjamin P. Runlle, United States Army, retired. 
Charge I. — " Violation of the act of Congress approyed March 2, 
1863, chapter 67, section 1." 



157 

Specification 1st. — "In this: that Benjamin P. Runlcle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as 
such, with the payment of chiims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military services from the United States ; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to jiay, and furnished 
■with sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to three 
hundred and eighteen dollars and eighty-one cents, ($318.81,) of one 
Louisa McKinuej', widow and legal heir of Wyatt McKinney, late a 
private of Company B, of the One hundred and tweqty-fourth Regi- 
ment of the United States Colored Troops, did fail and neglect to pay 
the same in full to said Louisa McKinney, but did pay her thereof only 
the sum of one hundred and fifty-six dollars and seventy-five cents, 
($150.75,) and did knowingly and willfully misappropriate and apply to 
his own use and benefit the balance of the said amount, namely, the 
sum of one hundred and sixty-two dollars and six cents, ($162.00,) 
money of the United States as aforesaid. This at or near Danville, 
Ky., on or abou£ October 21, 1870." 

Specification 2d. — "In this: that Benjamin P. EuuMe, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as 
such, with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to i)ay, and furnished 
with sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one 
hundred and eighty-eight dollars and fifty cents, ($188.50,) of one John 
Dudley, late a private in Company A, of the One hundredth Regiment 
of United States Colored Troops, did fail and neglect to pay the same, 
but did misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit the said 
sum of one hundred and eighty-eight dollars and fifty cents, ($188.50,) 
money of the United States as aforesaid. This at or near Danville, Ky., 
on or about June 20, 1871.*' 

Specification 3d. — " In this : that Benjamin P. Rnnlde, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with 
sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amouutiug to two hundred 
and forty-two dollars and sixty-seven cents, ($242.07,) of one Sarah Over- 
street, widow of Samuel \V. Overstreet, late corporal Company E, 
One hundred and twenty-fifth United States Colored Troops, did fail 
and neglect to pay the same, but did misappropriate and apply to his 
own use and benefit the said sum of two hundred and forty-two dollars 
and sixty-seven cents, ($242.07,) of public money of the United States 
as aforesaid. This at or near Louisville, Kv., on or about March 
23, 1871." 

Specification ith. — " In this : that Benjamin P. Runkle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with 
sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to three hun- 
dred and seventy-six dollars and sixteen cents, ($370.10,) of one Ann 
Farris, widow of Ephraim Farris, late a private in Company B, 



IS8 

Twelfth Colored Heavy Artillery, did fail and neglect to pay the same, 
but did misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit the said 
sum of three hundred and seventy-six dollars and sixteen cents, ($376.16,) 
jiublic money of the United States as aforesaid. This in the State of 
Kentucky, on or about the 18th of May, 1871." , 

Specification 5th. — " In this : that Benjamin P. Runlie, mnjor United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and being, 
as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suffi- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and 
sixty-seven dollars and thirty-eight cents, ($167.38,) of one Mahala 
Cavanaugh, widow of Irvine Cavanaugh, late a corporal in Company B, 
One hundred and fourteenth United States Colored Troops, did neg- 
lect and fail to pay the same in full, but did misappropriate and apply 
to his own use and benefit a large portion of the said one hundred and 
sixty-seven dollars and thirty-eight cents, ($167.38,) to wit, the sum of 
seventy-eight dollars and thirty-three cents, ($78.33,) more or less, pub- 
lic money of the United States as aforesaid. This at or near Richmond, 
Ky., on or about the 10th of August, 1870." 

Specification Qtli. — "In this: that Benjamin F. RunMej mtijor United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, with 
the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys due 
them for military service from the United States ; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient 
public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to three hundred and fifty- 
eight dollars and sixty-three cents, ($358.63,) of one Anna Jamison, widow 
of Isaac Jamison, late a private in Company K, One hundred and twenty- 
third United States Colored Troops, did neglect and fail to pay the same 
in full, but did misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit a 
large portion of the said three hundred and fifty-eight dollars and sixty- 
three cents, ($358.63,) to wit, the sum of three hundred and eight dollars 
and sixty-three cents, ($308.63,) more or less, public money of the United 
States as aforesaid. This in the State of Kentucky, on or about the 11th 
of March, 1871." 

Specification 1 til. — "In this: that Benjamin F. Fa nlle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of tlie Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the paymentof claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, dul^^ directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient 
public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and ten 
dollars, ($110,) of oneGeorge W. Henderson, private Company F, Sixtieth 
United States Colored Troops, did fail and neglect to pay the same, but 
did misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit the said sum 
of one hundred and ten dollars, ($110,) public money of the United States 
as aforesaid. This at or near Louisville, Ky., on or about June 15, 
1871." 

Specification ^tli. — "In this: that Benjamin F. BttnMe, n\a^]or United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States ; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient 



159 

public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to eighty-eight dollars and 
fifty cents, ($88.50,) of one James H. Gish, late a corporal in Company 
I), One hundred and eighth Eegiment of the United States Colored 
Troops, did fail and neglect to pay the same, but did misappropriate and 
apply to his own use and benefit the said sum of eighty-eight dollars and 
fifty cents, ($88.50,) public money of the United States as aforesaid. This 
at or near Hopkinsville, Ky., on or about March 13, 1871." 

Specification dth. — " In this : that Benjamin F. Rnnlle, major United 
States Army, retired, bdng on duty as disbursing ofiticer of the Bureau 
of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
diiethem for military service from the United States ; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient 
public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and eighty- 
nine dollars and lifty cents, ($189.50,) of one Mary Wilson, widow of W. 
Wilson, late a private in Company D, Third United States Colored 
Heavy Artillery, did neglect and fail to pay the same in full, but did 
misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit a large portion of 
the said one hundred and eighty-nine dollars and fifty cents, ($189.50,) to 
wit, the sum of one hundred and nine dollars, ($109,) more or less, public 
money of the United States as aforesaid. This in the State of Kentucky, 
on or about the -d of March, 1871." 

ISpecification 10th. — "In this: that Benjamin P. Bunlde, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States ; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient 
public funds for paying, the claim, auiounting to three hundred and 
one dollars and forty cents, ($301,40,) of one Frances Rowley, widow 
of Robert Rowley, or Roily, late a private in Company C, One hundred 
and twentieth Regiment of United States Colored Troops, did fail 
and neglect to pay the same, but did misappropriate and apply to his 
own use and benefit the said sum of three hundred and one dollars and 
forty cents, ($301.40,) public money of the United States as aforesaid. 
'Ihis at or near the State of Kentucky, on or about May 11, 1871." 

Specification 11th. — "In this: that Benjamin P. Bu)il-le, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States ; and being, as 
such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suf- 
ficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred 
and ninety dollars, ($190,) of one Richard Suggs, late a private in Com- 
panyG, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, did fail and 
neglect to pay the same, but did misappropriate and apply to his own use 
and benefit the said sum of one hundred and ninety dollars, ($190,) pub- 
lic money of the United States as aforesaid. This at or near the State 
of Kentucky, on or about May 11, 1871." 

Specification 12th. — "In this: that Benjamin P. BunJcle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States; and being, as 
such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suffi- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and 



i6o 

eighty-seven dollars, ($187,) of one Henry Hill, late a private in Com- 
pany G, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, did fail and 
neglect to pay the same, but did misappropriate and apply to his own 
nse and benefit the said sum of one hundred and eight3'-seven dollars, 
($187,) public money of the United States as aforesaid. This at or 
near the State of Kentucky, on or about May 11, 1871." 

Sj)€ciJication 13th. — "In this: that Benjamin F. Eunl-le, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing oflQcer of the Bureau 
of Eefngees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States ; and being, as 
such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suf- 
ficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to two hundred 
and seventeen dollars and five cents, ($217.05,) of one Mary Jane Wright, 
widow of Peter Wright, late a private in Company K, Eighth United 
States Colored Heavy Artillery, did fail and neglect to i)ay the same, 
but did misappropriate and apply to his own use and benefit the said 
sum of two hundred and seventeen dollars and five cents, ($217.05,) 
public money of the United States. This at or near the State of Ken- 
tucky, on or about March 13, 1871." 

Charge II. — "Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." 

Specification 1st. — "In this: that Benjamin P. En nkle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as 
such, with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and be- 
ing, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with 
sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to three hun- 
dred and eighteen dollars and eighty-one cents, ($318.81,) of one Louisa 
McKinney, widow and legal heir of Wyatt McKinney, late a private of 
Company B, of the One hundred and twenty-fourth Eegiment of United 
States Colored Troops, did willfully, and with intent to deceive his su- 
periors and to defraud the United States and the said Louisa McKin- 
ney, cause receipts to be executed by the said Louisa McKinney on du- 
plicate vouchers for the payment to her in full of the said sum, and did 
thereupon render and return to said Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus 
pretending that the said sum had actually been paid in full by him, and 
procuring himself to be actually credited for the same as so paid, 
whereas, in fact, the only amount then, or at any time thereafter, paid 
or caused to be i)aid by him to said Louisa McKinney was the sum of 
one hundred and fifty-six dollars and seventy-five cents, ($156.75.) This 
at or near Danville, Ky,, on or about October 24, 1870." 

^Specification 2d. — "In this: that Benjamin P. RnnAle, mi\jor United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, and charged, as 
such, with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and be- 
ing, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with 
sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred 
and eighty-eight dollars and fifty cents, ($188.50,) of one John Dudley, 
late a private in Company A, of the One hundredth Regiment of United 
States Colored Troops, did willfully, and with intent to deceive his supe- 
riors and to defraud the United States and the said John Dudley, cause 
receipts to be executed by the said John Dudley, on duplicate vouchers, 
for the payment to him of the said sum, and did thereupon render and 



i'6i 

return to said Burenu of Refng-ees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus pretending- that the 
said sum had actually been paid by him, whereas, in fact, he had neither 
j)aid nor caused to be paid the said snm of one hundred and eighty- 
eight dollars and fifty cents, ($188.50,) nor any part thereof. This at 
or near Danville, Ky., on or about June 2G, 1871." 

Specification 3d. — "In this: that Benjamin P. Runlde, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbnrsing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged as such 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for mon- 
eys due them for military service from the United States ; and being, 
as such disbursing- officer, duly directed to pay, and furnish with sufii- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to two hundred and 
forty-two dollars and sixty-seven cents,(| 242.07.) of one Sarah Overstreet, 
widow of Samuel Overstreet, late corporal Company E, One hundred and 
twenty-fifth Regiment of United States Colored Troops, did willfully, and 
with intent to deceive his superiors, and to defraud the United States 
and the said Sarah Overstreet, cause receipts to be executed by the said 
Sarah Overstreet on duplicate vouchers for the payment to her of the 
said sum, and did thereupon render and return to said Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the said vouchers and receipts so 
executed, thus pretending- that the said sum had actually been paid by 
him, whereas, in fact, he had neither paid nor caused to be paid the said 
sum of two hundred and forty-two dollars and sixty-seven cents, ($242.67,) 
nor anv part thereof. This at or near Louisville, Ky., on or about March 
23, 1871." 

Specification ifh. — "Li this: that Benjamin P. Eunlcle, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged,' as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for mon- 
eys due them for military service from the United States ; and being, 
as such disbursing- officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sutil- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amoi»nting to three hundred 
and seventy-six dollars and sixteen cents, ($376.10,) of one Ann Farris, 
widow of Ephraim Farris, late private Company B, Twelfth United 
States Colored Heavy Artillery, did willfully, and with intent to deceive 
his superiors and to defraud the United States and the said Ann Farris, 
cause receipts to be executed by the said Ann Farris, on duplicate 
vouchers, for the payment to her of the said sum, and did thereupon 
render and return to said Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus pretend- 
ing that the said sum had actually been paid by him, whereas, in fact, 
he had neither paid nor caused to be paid the said sum of three hun- 
dred and seventy six dollars and sixteen cents, ($376.16,) nor any part 
thereof. This in the State of Kentucky, on or about the 18th of May, 
1871." 

S])ecification 5th.— '■^ in this : that Benjamin P. EunMe, major United 
States Army, retired, being- on duty as a disbursing otficer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for mon- 
eys due them for military service from the United States; and being, 
as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suffi- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and 
sixty-seven dollars and thirty-eight cents, ($167.38,) of one Mahala Cav- 
anaugh, widow of Irvine Cavanaugh, late a corporal in Company B, 
One hundred and fourteenth United States Colored Troops, did willfully, 
11 H E 



l62 

niul witli intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the United 
kSrates and the said Mahala Cavanaugh, cause receipts to be executed 
by the said Mahala Cavanauj^h, on dnplicate vouchers, for the payment 
to her of the said sum, and did thereupon render and return to said 
Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the said vouch- 
ers and receipts so executed, thus pretending that the said sum had 
actually been paid by him, whereas, in fact, only a portion of the said 
sum of one hundred and sixty- seven dolhirs and thirty-eight cents, 
($l<)7.38,) to wit, eighty-nine dollars and live cents, (SSS9.05,) or there- 
abouts, had actually been paid by him, and the remainder, being seventy- 
eight dollars and thirty-three cents, ($78.33,) more or less, was still due 
and unpaid. This in the State of Kentucky, on or about the 10th of 
August, 1S70." 

Specification Gth. — "In this: i\\iii Benjamin P. Eunlde,m^}OV United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored sokliers, or their heirs, for mon- 
eys due them for military service from the United States; and being, 
as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sulii- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to three hundred 
and tifty-eight dollars and sixty-three cents, (-$358.03,) of one Anna Jam- 
ison, widow of Isaac Jamison, late a private in Company K, One hundred 
and twenty-third United States Colored Troops, did willfully, and with 
intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the United States and 
the said Anna Jamison, cause receipts to be executed by the said Anna 
Jamison, on duplicate vouchers, for the payment to her of the said sum, 
and did thereupon render and return to the said Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abaiuloned Lands, the said vouchers and receipts so ex- 
ecuted, thus pretending that the said sum had actually been paid by 
him, whereas, in fact, ouly a portion of the said sum of three hundred 
and tifty-eight dollars and sixty three cents, ($358.(>3,) to wit, fifty dollars, 
($50,) had actually been paid by him, and the remainder, being three hun- 
dred and eight dollars a^jd sixty-three cents, ($308.03,) more or less, was 
still due and unpaid. This in the State of Kentucky, on or about the 
11th of March, 1871." 

Specification 7th. — "In this: that Benjamin P. Runlde, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
Avith the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United 'States ; and being, as 
such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with suffi- 
cient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one hundred and 
ten dollars, ($110,) of one George W. Henderson, late private in Company 
F, of the Sixtieth United States Colored Troops, did willfully, and with 
intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the United States and the 
said George W. Henderson, cause receipts to be executed by the said 
George W. Henderson, on duplicate vouchers, for the payment to him 
of the said sum, and did thereupon render and return to said Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the said vouchers and re- 
ceipts so executed, thus pretending that the said suui had actually been 
paid by him, whereas, in fact, hv neitlier ])aid nor caused to be paid the 
said sum of one hundred and ten dollars, ($110,) nor any part thereof. 
This at or near Louisville, Ky., on or about June 15, 1871." 

Specification 8th. — "In this: that Benjamin P. it /r»/i7c, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, and charged, as such, 



i63 

•with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
dnethem for military service from the United States ; and being-, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient pub- 
lic funds for paying, the claim, amounting to eighty-eight dollars and 
fifty cents, ($88.50,) of one James H. Gish, late a corporal in Comi)any D, 
of the One hundred and eighth Ivegimeut of United States Colored 
Troops, did willfully, and with intent to deceive his superiors and to 
defraud the United States and the said James II. Gish, cause receipts 
to be executed by the said James H. Gish, on duplicate vouchers 
for the payment to him of the said sum, and did thereui)on render 
and return to said Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus pretending 
that the said sum had actually been paid by him, whereas, in fact, 
he had neither paid uor caused to be paid the said sum of eighty-eight 
dolUirs and fifty ceut-^, (-$88.50,) nor any part thereof. This at or near 
Hopkinsville, Ky., on or about March 13, 1871." 

Specification i)tJi. — "In this: that Benjamin F. Riinl-Ie, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lauds, aiul charged, as such, 
Avith tlie payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States ; and being, as such 
disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with sufficient i^ub- 
lic funds for paying, the claim, amouutiug to one hundred and eighty- 
nine dollars and fifty cents, ($189.50,) of one Mary Wilson, widow of W. 
Wilson, late a private in Company D, Third United States Colored 
Heavy Artillery, did willfully, and with intent to deceive his superiors 
and to defraud the United States and the said Mary Wilson, cause re- 
ceipts to be executed by the said Mary Wilson, on duplicate vouchers, 
for the payment to her of the said sum, and did thereupon render and 
return to said Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands 
the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus pretending that the 
said sum had actually beeu'paid by him, whereas, in fact, only a portion of 
the said sum of one hundred and eighty-nine dollars and^ fifty cents, 
($180.50,) to wit, eighty dollars and fitty cents, ($80.50,) or thereabouts^ 
had actually been paid by him, and the remainder, being one hundred 
and nine dollars, (8109,) more or less, was still due and unpaid. This in 
the State of Kentucky, on or about the 2d of March, 1871." 

Specification 10th. — " In this : that Benjamin P. EunMe, major United 
Stales Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bu- 
reau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and charged as 
such with the payment of (;laims of colored soldiers, or t-heir heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished with 
sufficient puolic funds for i)aying, the claim, amounting to three hun- 
dred aiul one dollars and forty cents, ($301.40,) of one Frances Eow- 
ley, widow of Eobert Eowley, or Eolly, late a private in Comi)any C, 
One hundred and twentieth Eegiment of United Stdes Colored Troops, 
did willfully, and with intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the 
United States and the said Frances Eowley, or Roily, cause receipts 
to be executed by the said Frances Eowley, or Eolly, on duplicate 
vouchers, for the payment to her of said sum, an<l did thereupon render 
and return to said Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Liiuds the said vouchers and receipts so executed, thus pretending that the 
said sum had actually been paid by him, whereas, in fact, he had neither 
paid nor caused to be paid the said sum of three hundred and one 



164 

(lolliirs and forty cents, ($301.40,) or any part thereof. This at or near 
the State of Kentucky, on or about May 11, 1S71." 

tSpecification 11th. — "'In this: that Benjamin 1\ Etinlcle, major United 
States Army, retired, being- on duty as disbursing]: officer of tbe Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States ; and 
being', as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished 
with sufficient public funds for paying, the cliiim, amounting to one 
hundred and ninety dollars, (S190,) of one Richard Suggs, late a private 
in Company G, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, did will- 
fully, and with intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the United 
States and the said Richard Suggs, cause receipts to be executed by 
the said Richard Suggs, on duplicate vouchers, for the payment to him 
of the said sum, and did tliereui)on render and return to said Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned I^ands the said vouchers and re- 
cei[)ts so executed, thus pretending that the said sum had aotnall^' been 
paid by him, whereas, in fact, he had neither paid nor caused to be paid 
the said sum of one hundred and ninety dollars, ($190,) nor any part 
thereof. This at or near the State of Kentucky, on or about Mav 11, 
1871." 

Specification 12th. — " In this : that Benjamiii P. RimJcle, major United 
States Array, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to pay, and furnished 
with sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to one 
hundred and eighty-seven dollars, ($187,) of one Henry Hill, late a pri- 
vate in Company G, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, did 
willfully, and with intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the 
United States and the said Henry Hill, cause receipts to be executed 
by the said Henry Hill, on du[)licate \'ouchers, for the payment to him 
of the said sum, and did thereupon render and return to said Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the said vouchers and re- 
ceipts so executed, thus pretending that the said sum had actually been 
paid by him, whereas, in fsict, he had neither paid nor caused to be paid 
the said sura of one hundred and eighty-seven dollars, ($187,) nor any 
part thereof. This at or near the State of Kentucky, on or about May 
11, 1871." 

Specification loth. — " In this : that Benjamin P. EimMe, major United 
States Army, retired, being on duty as a disbursing officer of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as 
such, with the payment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for 
moneys due them for military service from the United States; and 
being, as such disbursing officer, duly directed to i)ay, and furnished 
with sufficient public funds for paying, the claim, amounting to two 
hundred and seventeen dollars and five cents, ($217.05,) of one Mary 
Jane Wright, widow of Peter Wright, late a private in (Company 
K, Eighth United States Colored Heavy Artillery, did willfully, and 
with intent to deceive his superiors and to defraud the United States 
and the said Mary Jane Wright, cause receipts to be executed by the 
said Mary Jane Wright, on duplicate vouchers, for the payment to her 
of the said sum, and did thereupon render and return to said Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands the said vouchers and re- 
ceipts so executed, thus i)reteuding that the said sum had actually been 



i65 

paid by liim, whereas, in foct, lie bad iieitber paid nor caused to be paid 
the said sum of two hundred and seventeen doUars and five cents, 
($217.05,) nor any part thereof. This at or near the State of Kentucky, 
on or about March 13, 1871." 

Specification 14///. — "In tbis: that Benjamin P. Runllc, major United 
States Army, retired, being- on duty as a disbursing officer of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and charged, as such, 
with the i)ayment of claims of colored soldiers, or their heirs, for moneys 
due them for military service from the United States; and having, in 
the performance of this duty of the payment of claims, employed or 
made use of the services and assistance of one C. D. Smith, a citizen of 
Paducah, Ky., for the purpose of discovering claimauts and paying 
them amounts due them, and procuring their receipts for said payments, 
did receive from the said C D. Smith a letter, of which the following is 
a cop3 , viz : 

PADtTCAH, Ky., Scpfemhcr 9, 1870. 
Benjamin P. Runki.e, 

Major United Staies Army, Cincinnati, Ohio: 

Inclosed fiud a list of persons whose claims have been allowed, but not paid off. 

I do not want to write to General Howard to forward to yon any of them, for fear of 
making some mistake, as I have done in one instance, in the case of Peggy Turley, 
mother of William Bennet, Company E, 8th, in which case the rei)ly was that the 
vouchers had been returned to that oftice by you paid. She is now with her son, Tom 
Turley, near this place, and I think she had better be settled with. They dou't know 
what the answer is, as I have told them that I would write to you. Her son Tom 
knows how to make a fuss. 

Also, I have to inform you that I have found near here the only child, now grown, 
that Perry McCracken left. Send me the vouchers and they can be "fixed."' 

Also, I send you the claim of Betty McGuire's children, which I thought had beeu 
sent to your oftice, but had not. I have found it since you left here. 

Jackson Patterson, of whom I spoke to you as not having beeu paid, was here yes- 
terday, and if he dou't get his money I can't be answerable any longer for the conse- 
quences, .$187.50. You can send it less .$25 and he will accept that. 

You recollect you agreed to send me iSGl for the sister of Sam Holmes. 

She lives in town, and says the sooner she gets, &c. 

Inclosed I send you some vouchers for payment. 

C. D. SMITH. 

And further, that the said Benjamin P. Runlde did read the aforesaid 
letter, which contains dishonest and dishonorable propositions, made to 
him by the said C. D. Smith, but afterward, and with a full knowledge 
of the contents of said letter, did continue to employ the said C. D. 
Smith as an assistant and agent for him, Runlde, in the disbursement of 
public moneys. All this in the States of Kentucky and Ohio, on or 
about the month of September, 1870/' 

To which charges and specifications the accused, Maj. Benjamin P. 
EunMe, United States Army, (retired,) pleaded "Not Guilty." 

Finding. 

The court, having maturely considered the evidence adduced, find 
the accused, Maj. Benjamin P. Runlde, United States Army, (retired,) as 
follows : 

Charge I. 

Of the 1st Specification, " Guilty, except so much thereof as is embraced 
in the following words, viz, 'and did knowingly and willfully misappro- 
priate and apply to his own use and beneht the balance of the said 
amount, namely, the sum of one hundred and sixty-two dollars and six- 
cents, (.$102.0G,) money of the United States as aforesaid,' aud of the 
part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the 2d Specification, " Guilty." 



i66 

Of the 3d Specification^ ^'Guilty, except so much thereof as is coutained 
iu the following words, viz, 'but did misappropriate and apply to his 
own use and benefit the said sum of two hundred and forty-two dollars 
and sixty-seven cents, ($242,07,) of public money of the United States as 
aforesaid,' and of the part so excepted IS'ot Guilty." 

Of the 4th Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is cou- 
tained in the following words, viz, 'but did misappropriate and apply 
to his own use and benefit the said sum of three hundred and seveuty- 
six dollars and sixteen cents, ($370.16,) public money of the United 
States as aforesaid,' and of the part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the oth Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is con- 
tained in the following words, viz, 'the same iu full, but did misappro- 
priate and api)ly to his own use and benefit a large portion of the said 
one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and tliirty eight cents, ($167.38,) to 
Avit,' and of the part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the 6th Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is con- 
tained in the following words, viz, 'the same in full, but did misappro- 
priate and apply to his own use and benefit a large portion of the said 
three hundred and fifty-eight dollars and sixty-three cents, ($358.63,) to 
wit,' and of the part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the 7th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 8th Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is con- 
tained in the following words, viz, 'but did misappropriate and apply 
to his own use and benefit the said sum of eighty-eight dollars and fifty 
cents, ($88.50,) public money of the United States as aforesaid,' and of 
the part so excepted Not Guilt v." 

Of the 9th Specification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 10th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 11th Specification, " Guilty." 

Of the 12th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 13th Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is con- 
tained iu the following words, viz, 'but did misapproi)riate and apply 
to his own use and benefit the said sum of two hundred and seventeen 
dollars and five cents, ($217.05,) public money of the United States,' and 
of the part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the ('HARaE, "Guilty." 

Charge II. 

Of the 1st Specification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 2d Speei'fi cation, "Guilty." 

Of the 3d Specification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 4th Spe'eification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 5th Speeilieatio7i, " Not Guilty." 

Of the Oth Specification, " Not Guilty." 

Of the 7th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 8th Specification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the Oth Speeification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 10th Speiiification, " Guilty." 

Of the 11th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 12th Specification, "Guilty." 

Of the 13th Specification, "Not Guilty." 

Of the 14th Specification, "Guilty, except so much thereof as is con- 
tained in the following Avords, viz, 'and paying them amounts due them, 
and procuring their receipts for said paynients,' and also the words 'as 
an assistant and agent for him, Bnnlde, in the disbursement of public 
moneys,' and of the part so excepted Not Guilty." 

Of the CiiARaE, "Guilty." 



16; 

Sentence. 

And tlie court does tlierefore sentence him, Maj, Benjamin P. Runlde, 
United ^tates Array, (retired,) " To he cashiered, and the crime, name, place 
of abode, andpunisliment to be published in the newspapers of the State where 
he usually resides ; to pay to the United States a fine of seven thousand five 
hundred dollars, (87,500;) to be confined in such penitentiary as the Presi- 
dent of the United. States may direct for the period, of four years ; and in 
the event of the non-payment of the fine imposed, at the expiration of four 
years, that he be l:ept in confinement in the penitentiary until the fine be paid, 
the total term of imprisonment, however, not to exceed eight years.''^ 

II. The proceedings of the general court-martial in the foregoing case of 
Maj. Benjamin P. Runlie, United States Army, (retired,) are approved 
■with the exception of the action of the court in rejecting as evidence a 
certain letter written by a witness for the prosecution, and offered to 
impeach his credibility ; also, in unduly restricting the cross-examination 
of the same witness in relation to the motives influencing his testimony. 

Inasmuch, however, as in the review of the case it was determined 
that the whole testimony of this witness could be excluded from con- 
sideration witiiout impairing the force of the testimony for the prosecu- 
tion, upon which the findings rest, the erroneous action of the court in 
this respect does not affect the validity of the sentence. 

The findings and sentence are approved. 

In view of the unanimous recommendation by the members of the 
court that accused shall receive Executive clemency on account of his 
gallant services during the war, and of his former good character; and 
in consideration of evidence by aflidavits, presented to the War Depart- 
ment since his trial, showing that accused is now, and was at the time 
when his offense was committed, suffering under great infirmity in con- 
sequence of wounds received in battle ; and credible representations 
having been made that he would be utterly nnable to pay the fine imposed, 
the President is pleased to remit all of the sentence except so much 
thereof as directs cashiering, which will be duly executed. 

III. Maj. Benjamin P. Bunlde, United States Army (retired,) ceases 
to be an officer of the Army from the date of this order. 

IV. The general court-martial of which Col. F. F. Flint, Fourth 
Infantry, is president is hereby dissolved. 

By order of the Secretarv of War. 

E. D. tow:n^send, 

Adjutant- General 



Exhibit S*. 

Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, Office Disbursing 
Officer and Quartermaster's Agent, 
No. 20G Saint Charles Street, 

]S!ew Orleans, May 18, 18G9. 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch^ 

Chief Bisbursiny Ojfieer, Bureau Refugees, Freedmen 

and Abandoned Lands, Washington, B. C. : 

General : I have the honor to transmit herewith the names of the 

following parties who have, I believe, been wrongfully paid by C. S. 

Sauviuet, and identified by F. W. Jones. Benjamui Hill, Company F, 

Seventieth United States Colored Troops, paid December 1(3, 18G8 ; 



i68 

Georg-e Walker, Coinpauy E, Seveiitietli United States Colored Troops, 
paid December IS, 1808. 

Yerj respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDGAR Co BEMAK. 
Bvt. Lt. Col. and Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit T*. 

Bureau Refugees, Ereedjmen and 

Abandoned Lands, Office Disbursing 
Officer and Quartermaster's Agent, 
No. 206 Saint Charles Street, 

New Orleans^ May 24, 1869. 
Bvt. Brig-. Gen. George W. Balloch, 

Chief Bishxirsing Officer, Bureau Refugees, Freedmen 

and Abandoned Lands, Wasldngton City, D. C. : 
General : I have the honor to transmit herewith the name of Wash- 
ington Glover, Comi)any A, Fifty-first United States Colored Troops, as 
having-, according to his own statement, never received his bounty, while 
the books of this ofiice show that the money was i)aid by Sauviu(Ston 
the 9th of March, 1808 ; identitied by F. W. Jones. 
Yery respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDGAR C. BEMAN, 
Bvt. Lt. Col. and Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit T* — Continued. 

[First indorsement.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, May 28, 1809. 
Respectfully returned with the information that on the 22d day of 
September last, the receipted vouchers of Washington Glover, late of 
A Company, Fifty-first United States Colored Troo[)s, were received at 
this office, and on the same day the amount due him was remitted to 
Mr. Sauvinet, by my check, No. 101, on the United States assistant 
treasurer at New Orleans, drawn for the siun of eleven thousand four 

hundred and dollars and eleven cents ($11,407.11) in payment of 

fifty-two (52) cases colored bounty. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing O^cer, 
PerR. 



Exhibit U*. 

Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
Office Disbursing Officer and Quartermaster's Agent, 

JVo. 200 St. Charles Street, Neiv Orleans, June 7, 1809. 

Brevet Brigadier-General Geo. W. Balloch, 

Chief Disbursing Officer, Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 

Abandoned lAcnds, Washington City, D. C: 
General: Edmund Clarkston, Company A, Sixty-eighth United 
States Colored Troops, and Watson King, Company F, Sixth Heavy 



169 

Artillery, presented themselves at this office for payment. An exam- 
ination of the books showed that the claim of Clarkstou had been paid 
November 11, 1S6S, and the claim of King paid iSTovember 26, 1868. 

Both these claims were paid by C. S. Sauvinet ; identified by F. W. 
Jones. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDGAE C. BEMAN, 
Brvt. Lieut. Col. and Disbursimj Officer. 



Exhibit V^. 

New Orleans, La., June 7, 1869. 

Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 

Chief D. 0. Bureau E. F. A. L., Washington City, D. C: 

Dear General : I am under the impression (though not positive) 
that I wrote you a private letter some time since, stating that several 
parties had applied to me for payment of their claims, and that the 
books showed that the money had been received and the claim jiaid by 
C. S. Sauvinet, and the parties to whom the money was paid identified 
by F. W. Jones, and that I believe the money has been wrongfully paid, 
from the fact that the party presenting himself to me was in possession 
of all the necessary papers and identified himself to my entire satisfac- 
tion, even to giving the names of nearly all the men in his company 
appearing on the books. 

I think it very singular that all these cases should have been identified 
by F. W. Jones. iS^ot a single instance has yet arisen of a party wrong- 
fully paid unless he was identified by F. W. Jones. 

While I do not feel authorized to venture an oinnion,V cannot help my 
inqn-essions, which are involuntary. I therefore respectfully submit these 
facts to you for your consideration. 

I think I also wrote to you that I should occasionally forward to you 
the names of such parties, that you might be advised of the state of 
affairs. 

Accordingly, on the 2J:th of May I wrote to you, giving the name of 
a party wrongfully paid, and my letter was returned to me with an in- 
dorsement having no reference to the real merits of the case. The in- 
dorsement stated that the money was sent at such a date by check 'No., 
&c., which had nothing to do with the question at issue, as my letter 
shows that the money had been received and i)aid, which would not, of 
course, have been done, had not the money been received. 

I am therefore led to believe that you never saw the indorsement, or 
that your attention was not called to the letter, and this is my reason 
for writing a private letter on an ofQcial subject. 

I return herewith my letter to you of May 24th, with indorsement 
from your office, for your examination. 

I also inclose your letter of June 1st, with my indorsement thereon ; 
also letter giving the names of two parties whose claims it is believed 
have been wrongfully paid. 

Verv respectfullv. your obedient servant, 

(Signed) ' EDGAR C. BEMAN, 

Bvt. Lt. Col. and Disbursing Officer. 



i7o 

Exhibit W*. 

Office of the Co3I3itssionee, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington Giti/j January 4, 1872. 
To the lioiiorable the Secretary of War : 

Sir : I have the honor to forward herewith, for your iuforraatiou, the 
record of the proceedings of the commission for the investigation of 
alleged bounty frauds in Kentucky, convened by authority of Special 
Orders No. 152, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, 
series of 1S71, and to recommend as follows : 

First. That authority be given to pay the sums decided to be due the 
parties named in cases numbered 1, 2, 3, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 
20, 23, 24, out of any funds of this Bureau that may be properly used 
for the purpose. 

Second. I recommend that Maj. Ben. P. Eunkle, U. S. A., and R. E. 
Johnson be required to report in cases where they are alleged to have 
been directUj responsible. There are but few cases in which, as it seems, 
Major Rankle is directly responsible. His report or explanation of a 
I)art of them is inclosed. 

Third. I recommend that steps be taken to bring Lieut. John L. Gra- 
ham, U. S. A., before a court-martial, on charge of breach of trust and 
neglect of duty. Witnesses, members of this commission and Major 
Runkle. 

Fourth. I recommend that legal proceedings in civil court be begun 
against S. G. Burbridge, late civilian agent, for breach of trust in the 
disbursement of bounty-moneys. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen. JJ. 8. A., Commissioner. 

Bureau of Military Justice, 

January 10, 1872. 

Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War. 

In this case there is no sufficient evidence furnished upon which intel- 
ligently to frame charges and specifications against the officers named, 
as connected with the matter of the alleged non-payment of bounty, «&;c., 
to colored soldiers in Kentucky. The report of the board appointed to 
investigate the subject does not supply the necessary testimony, con- 
sisting, as it does, entirely of the results arriv^ed at by the officers 
composing it, upon statements and evidence which they omit to give. 
The most valuable, and, for present purposes, material part of the inves- 
tigation being thus wanting, no proper basis remains for the preparation 
of charges. 

Under the circumstances, it would be advised that the papers be 
transmitted to General Terry, with the request that he place the case 
in the hands of his judge-advocate, with instructions to obtain the 
specific testimony of the different witnesses who would be necessary to 
substantiate the charges, and, upon such evidence, to prepare the proper 
charges and specifications for trial. 

But before this direction be given to the case, it is recommended 
that Major Runkle and Lieutenant Graham be called upon, the latter 
for a full statement of his action in all the cases in which parties are 
alleged or supposed to have been neglected to be paid by him ; the 
former for a further and additional explanation in regard to cases not 
reported upon in his communication, without date, inclosed herewith. 



171 

This course is deemed most desirable, since, in the absence of the 
fullest information, it cannot be satisfactorily concluded whether cliarges 
can be sustained. Further, from the statements of Major Eunkle, it 
is readily perceived that colored soldiers might fail to receive their 
arrears of pay or bounty through the neglect or fraud of sub-agents, 
without any criminal responsibility on the part of an officer of the Army 
charged generally with the payments. 

As to the civilian agents referred to — Messrs. Burbridge and John- 
son — this Bnreau can only suggest that their cases be committed to the 
proper United Htates prosecuting officer, for such investigation as may 
be held desirable. 

J. HOLT, 
Judge Advocate- General. 



Exhibit X^ 

Record of the commission for the investigation of bounty-frauds^ convened 
hy Special Orders No. 152, Bureau E., F. and A. L., series 1871. 

Cases investigated. 



Names. No. of case. 

Boston, Squire 11 

Bullitt, Julia 13 

Boleu, Ricliaid 14 

Berry, Betsey 20 

Campbell, Agnes 1 

Clark, Letta 3 

Dudley, John 23 

Farrus, Ann 4 

Guthrie, Harvey 12 

Hicks, Dilsey 8 

Johnson, Luther 22 

Moss, Sanders 10 



Names. No. of case. 

Mattingly, Celia 15 

Mathews, Isaac 17 

Newman, Maiy and Ann 2 

Potter, James 16 

Raglaud, Samuel 21 

Stewart, William 19 

Smith, Eliza 7 

Stone, Ann 18 

Triplett, Thomas . . . - 9 

Valentine, James 24 

Wilson, Jordeu 5 

Young, Mercah 6 



Cases not investigated. 



Names. 
Brown, Verbula. 
Beall, Squire. 
Eve, Reuben. 
Davis, Sarah. 
Folsom or Fortson, Henry. 
Garrard, Violet. 
Gilbert, Elden. 
Henderson, Geo. W. 
Jennings, Amarinda. 
Jamison, Anna. 



Names. 
Lindsay, Jane. 
Overton, Moses, 
Perrick, Jaunah. 
Reeves, Ben. 
Ritchoy, Rose. 
Turner, Abraham. 
Stewart, Jamison. 
Todd, Smith. 
Young, John Anderson. 



Proceedings of a commission convened at Louisville, Ky., in compliance 
with the following special order : 

[Special Orders No. 152. Extract.] 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

WasMngton, October 23, 1871. 
1. Quite a number of cases in Kentucky having come to the knowledge of the Com- 
missioner, where fraud has been perpetrated upon the soldier, depriving him. of his 
bounty by some other man successfully deceiving the disbursing agent, it is hereby 
ordered that a commission, to consist of Cai^t. E. C. Knower, U. S. A., agent, &c., 



172 

and John H. Cook, chief clerk, &c., be iu session at the office of H. H. Ray, agent, 
&.(■., at Louisville, Ky., during the third and fourth weeks in November next, and that 
the parties in Kentucky complaining of frauds be requested to appear and tile their 
complaints, and that the commission investigate the facts sufficiently in each case to 
enable this Bureau to do impartial justice. 

2. Capt. E. C. Knower, U. S. A., Baltimore, Md., and John H. Cook, Washington, 
D. C, will proceed, on the 9th proximo, from their respective stations to Louisville, 
Ky., in accordance with the provisions of part 1 of this order. 

On the completion of tlieir business they will return to their stations. 

The chief disbursing officer will settle Captain Knower's accounts for mileage, and 
Mr. Cook's accounts for actual expense. 

By order ot 0. O. Howard, Brigadier-General, Commissioner: 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Acihig Assistant Adjiitaui-GeneraL 

Monday, Novemhey 13, 1871. 

The commission met at 9 a. m., in compliance with the above orders. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

No complainants having- appeared in answer to notification, the com- 
mission, after transacting some preliminary business, adjourned, at 4 
p. m., to 10 a. m. November 14, 1871. 

Tuesday, N'ovemler 14, 1871. 
The commission met pnrsuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission then proceeded to investigate the case of Agnes 
Campbell, mother of Anthony Campbell, Company C, One hundred and 
twenty-third United States Colored Troops, Complaint of non-recep- 
tion of bounty and pay, made through William M. Webb, of Sulphur 
Station, Henry County, Ky. (No papers.) The commission having been 
duly sworn, and the order convening the same having been read to the 
complainant and witnesses, who, in each case, were duly sworn before 
examination, the commission, after mature deliberation, reached the 
following conclusion: 

That the claim ot non-reception by Agnes Campbell is established, 
and that arrears of pay amounting to $44.50 are still justly due the 
claimant. 

The records of Maj. Ben. P. Eumble show that the alleged ijaymeut 
was made, through S. G. Burbridge, March 1, 1871. 

EDW'D C. KNOWEE, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

(JMef Cleric. 

Having concluded the investigation of Agnes Campbell's case, the 
commission proceeded to investigate the case of Amy and Mary New- 
man, sisters of Dennis Jones, Company I, Sixth United States Colored 
Troops, (cavalry.) (No papers.) Complaint of non-reception of arrears 
due from the Government, made through William M. Webb. 

The complainant and witnesses were dulj' sworn before examination. 
The commission, after mature deliberation, decide : That, from lack of 
evidence confirming claimants' testimony, no positive conclusion can be 
reached ; but the commission were impressed with the truthfulness 
and consistency of the testimony. Attention is called to the small 
amouHt, ($10.80 due each claimant,) which have been nearly equaled by 
the traveling expenses incurred by the claimants iu trying to establish 



173 

their claim. The records of Major Rankle show that the alleged pay- 
ment was made March 4, 1871, through S. G. Bnrbridge. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant^ United States xirmy. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

Commission having no more business before it, at 4 p. m. adjourned 
to meet again at 10 a. m. i^ovember 15, 1871. 

Wednesday, Xovemher 15, 1871. 
The commission met pursuant to adjonrnment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission proceeded to inquire into the case of Letta Clark, 
mother of Arthur May, deceased, private, Company K, One hundred 
and twenty-second United States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 
550426, for $3L*0.00. (For papers see 725 B, C. D. O.) Complaint of 
non-reception of bounty and back pay. The commission, complainant, 
and witnesses were duly sworn, the order convening the commission was 
read, and after a thorough examination of the complainant and the wit- 
nesses, the commission, upon mature deliberation, decide : That the 
claim of non-reception by Letta Clark is fully established, and that 
Army pension and bounty amounting to $326.66 are still justly due the 
claimant. 

The records of Major Runkle show that the alleged payment was 
made July 25, 1870, through John L. Graham, United States Army. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief ClerJc. 

The commission next proceeded to investigate the case of Ann Far- 
rus, widow of Ephraim Farms, Company D, Twelfth United States 
Colored Heavy Artillery, settled by certificate 576853, for .$376.10. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears due from the Government. 
(No papers.) 

The commission having been duly sworn, the order convening same 
read, and also the complainant and witnesses sworn before examination, 
the commission, upon mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, 
decide : 

That the claim of non-reception by Ann Farms is fully established, 
and that Army pension and bounty, amounting to $370.16, are still 
justly due claimant. 

The records of Major Runkle show that the alleged payment was 
made through himself, March 18, 1871. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United. States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief CJerl: 

The commission next proceeded to investigate the case of Jordon 
Wilson, Company A, One hundredth United States Colored Troops ; 
settled by certificate 531525, for $180. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears of bounty and pay due* from 
the Government. (No papers.) 



174 

The commissiou were iluly sworn, the authority convening the same 
read, and the oath administered to the comphiiuaut and witnesses before 
examination. After mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced in 
the case, the commission decide : That from hick of evidence contirniiug 
the claimant's statement, no positive conclusion can be reached, but 
fully believe that Wilson has not received his money, ($186,) from irreg- 
ularities (clearly proven) connected with payment of other claims 
through the agent named below. 

Major Runkle's records show alleged j^ayment to have been made 
February 18, 1871, through S. G. Burbridge, agent, &c. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lientenant, United States Army. 
Ji^O. H. COOK. 

Chief Cleric. 

The commission then adjourned at 4 p. m., to Thursday, November 16, 
at 10 a. m. 

Thursday, November 16, 1871. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

No complamants having appeared before the commission, it adjourned 
at 4 p. m.jto meet on Friday, November 17, 1871, at 10 a. m. 

Friday, November 17, 1871. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission then proceeded to investigate the case of Mereah 
Young, alias Armstrong, widow of Jerry Young, alias Robert L. Arm- 
strong. Case settled by certificate 573119 ; amount due claimant, 
$203.14. 

Complaint of non reception of arrears of pay and bounty, made through 
James M. Anderson, attorney, &c., Glasgow, Ky. (See 1515 B, C. D. 
O., 1871.) 

The commission were duly sworn. The investigation of this case con- 
firms the claimant's statement ; but the reason for non-payment is satis- 
factory to the commission, and furnishes no grounds for charge of 
irregularity. 

The commission next inquired into the case of Eliza Smitli, widow of 
William or Bill Smith, late private Company H, One hundred and fif- 
teenth United States Colored Troops. Settled by certificate No. 574146. 
Amount due claimant, $401.28. 

Complaintof non-reception of arrears of pay and bounty, made through 
James M. Anderson, of Glasgow, Ky. (See 1515 B, C. I). O., 1871.) 

Having been first duly sworn before examination into the case, the 
commission find that the funds for the payment of Eliza Smith are in 
the hands of 3Iaj. Ben. P. Runkle. 

The commissiou then adjourned, at 4 p.m., to meet at 10 a. m. Satur- 
day, November 18, 1871. 

EDWARD C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United iStates Army, 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 



^7S 

Saturday, Noveniher 18, 1871. 

The commissiou met pursuant to adjourumeut. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant, United States Army, and 
John H. Coolv, cliief cleric. 

No cases having come before tlie commission, it adjourned at 4 p. m., 
to meet at 10 a. m. Monday, November 20, 1871. 

Monday, JSfovemher 20, 1871. 

The commission met at 10 a. m., pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. 0. Knower, first lieutenant. United States Army ; John H. 
Cook, chief clerk, &c: 

The commission proceeded to investigate the case of Dilsey Hicks, 
widow of Silas Hicks, late private Company G, One hundred and twenty- 
fifth United States Colored Troops. Settled by certificate 575,775 ; 
amount due claimant, $303.33. 

Complaint of non-reception of full amount of arrears — pay and bounty — 
due from the Government; complaint made through Mrs. Virginia Spen- 
cer. (See 1134 B, 1871, C. D. O.) 

Tlie members of the commission were duly sworn, the order conven- 
ing the same read, and the oath administered to the claimant and wit- 
nesses before examination. 

The commissiou, after mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, 
decide : 

That the claim of non-reception of the full amount by Dilsey Hicks 
is fully established ; and that Army bounty and pension, amounting to 
$243.33, are still justly due the claimant. 

The records of Major Eunkle show the alleged payment to have been 
made on the 13th day of April, 1871, through S. G. Burbridge. 

EBW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief ClerJc. 

The commissiou then adjourned at 6 p. m., to meet Tuesdav, November 
21, 1871, at 10 a. m. 

Tuesday, November 21, 1871. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant. United States Army, and John 
H. Cook, chief clerk, &c. 

The commission proceeded to inquire into the case of Thomas Triplett, 
late sergeant Company K, One hundredth United States Colored Troops ; 
settled by certificate 472,459 ; amount due claimant, $200. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears due from the Government. (See 
1405, C. D. O, 1871.) 

The members of the commissiou were duly sworn, the order convening 
the same read, and the oath administered to the claimant and identifying 
witness before examination. 

The commissiou, upon mature deliberation, decide: 

That the claim of non-reception by Thomas Triplett is established ; 
and that bounty, amounting to $200, is still due the claimant. 

Major Hankie's records sliow the alleged payment to have been made 
November 24, 18GS, through E. E. Johnson. 

EDWD C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United iStates Army. 
JNO. H. COOK 

Chief Cleric. 



176 , 

The commission next proceeded to investigate tlie case of Sanders 
Moss, father of Moses Moss, Company I, One hnudred and fourteenth 
United States Colored Troops ; settled by certiticate 548,763 ; amount due 
claimant, 8214.76. 

Complaint of non-reception of full amount of arrears of pay and 
bounty made through O. M. Rood. (See 280, C. D. O., B 1871.) 

The members of the commission were duly sworn, the order conven- 
ing the same read, and the claimant sworn before examination. • 

Upon mature deliberation upon the evidence in this case, the commis- 
sion decide : 

That the claim of non-reception of full amount* by Sanders Moss is 
fully established; and that arrears of pay and bounty, amounting to 
$100, are still justly due the claimant. 

Major Itunkle's records show the alleged full i»ayments ($214.76) to 
have been made May 23, 1870, through himself. 

EDW^D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
Ji^O. H. COOK, 

Chief Clerh. 

The commission then adjourned at 4i). m., to meet at 10 a. m., Wednes- 
day, November 22, 1871. 

Wednesday, November 22, 1871. 
The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, tirst lieutenant. United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission proceeded to investigate the case of Squire Boston, 
late private Company I, One hundred and ninth United States Colored 
Troop, setLled by certificate 572,548. Amount due claimant, $89.90. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears of pay and bounty due from 
the Government made through Chambers Baird. (See 1606 A, 1871, C. 
D.) 

The members of the commission were duly sworn, the order convening 
the same read, and the claimant sworn before examination. After ma- 
ture deliberation upon the evidence adduced, the conclusion of the com- 
mission in this case is as follows : That the claim of non-reception of 
the full amount by Squire Boston is fullj^ established, and that bounty 
amounting to thirty-six dollars and ten cents ($36.10) is still justly 
due the claimant. 

Maj. Ben. P. Kunkle's records show that the alleged full payment ($89.90) 
was made on the 20th day of March, 1871, through himself. 

1 EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The commission ^Ijourned at 4 p. m., to meet Thursday, November 
23, at 10 a. m. 

Thursday, November 23, 1871. 

The commission met jjursuaut to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant, United Sates Array, and John 
H. Cook, chief clerk, &c. 

The commission then proceeded to investigate the case of Harvey 
Guthrie, late i^rivate Company F, One hundred and eighth United 



177 

States Colored Troops ; settled by certificate 307,989. Amount due 
claimant, $187. 

Complaint of non-payment of bounty due from the Government 
made through O. M. Rood. (See also 577 B, 1871, C. D. O.) 

The commission having been duly sworn, and theorder convening- the 
same read, the complainant and witnesses were duly sworn and exam- 
ined. 

The commission, after mature deliberation upon the evidence in this 
case, decide that the claim of non-reception by Harvey Guthrie is fully 
established, and that bounty amounting to one hundred and eighty- 
seven dollars ($187) is still justly due the claimant. 

The records of Maj. Ben. P. Runkle show that the alleged payment 
was made November 2, 18G7, through John L. Graham, United States 
Army. 

ED WD C. K]!^OWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JOHN H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The commission adjourned at 1 p. m., to Friday, November 21, at 10 
a. m. 

Friday, November 21, 1871. 
The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk, &c. 

The commission proceeded to inquire into the case of Julia Bullitt, 
widow of Sandy Bullitt, late private Company L, Fifth United States 
Army, settled by certificate 573905 ; amount due claimant, $35.68. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears of pay, made through O. M. 
Rood. (See 1518 B, 1871, C. D. O.) 

The commission having been duly sworn, the order convening the 
same read, and the oath administered to the claimant and witnesses be- 
fore examination, the commission, after mature deliberation upon the 
evidence adduced, decide : That from lack of evidence confirming the 
claimant's statement, no positive conclusion can be reached ; but the 
commission are fully convinced that the claimant has not received her 
money, ($35.68,) for the reason given in case No. 5. 

Major Ben. P. Runkle's records show the alleged payment to have 
been made on the llth day of March, 1871, through S. G. Burbridge. 

ED WD. C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The commission adjourned at 1 p. m. to 10 a. m. Saturday, Novem- 
ber 25, 1871. 

Saturday, November 55, 1871 — 10 a. m. 
The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission proceeded to consider the case of Richard Bolen, late 
private Company H, One hundredth United States Colored Troops, set- 
tled by certificate 532681 ; amount due claimant, $135.53. 

Complaint of non-reception of amount due on said certificate from the 
12 H E 



178 

Government, made through J. W. Twyman. (See 1074, C. D. O., 1871.) 
The comphiiut in this case was withdrawn in a letter of J. W. Twymau, 
dated Hodgenville, November 21, 1871. Said letter is filed with the 
papers containing the complaint. 

The commission considered the case of Celia Mattiugly, mother of 
David Miles, late private Company G, One hundred and twenty-fifth 
United States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 568912, for $339.66 ; 
amount due claimant, $325.66. 

Complaint of non-reception of bounty, &c., made through J. W. Fidd- 
ler. (See 990, A. G. O., vol. 18, 1871.) 

The commission find that the funds for the payment of this case 
■were in the hands of Colonel Ben. liuukle on the 6th instant. 

The commission then adjourned at 4 p. m. to Monday, ifovember 27, 
1871, at 10 a. m. 

Monday, November 27, 1871 — 10 a. m. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Kuower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk, &c. 

No business having come before the commission, it adjourned at 4 
p. m. to Tuesday, November 28, 1871, at 10 a. m. 

Tuesday, Novemhcr 28, 1871 — 10 a. m. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk. 

No complainants having made their aj^pearance before the commission, 
it adjourned at 4 p. m. to Wednesday, November 29, 1871, at 10 a. m. 

Wednesday, November 29, 1871 — 10 a. m. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant U. S. A., and John H. Cook, 
chief clerk. 

The commission proceeded to inquire into the case of James Potter, 
Company B, One hundred and ninth United States Colored Troops, 
settled by certificate 546,075 ; amount due claimant, $90. Complaint 
of non-reception of bounty. 

The members of the commission having been duly sworn, the order 
convening the same read, and the witness sworn before examination, 
after mature deliberation of the evidence adduced, the commission de- 
cides — 

That the claim of non-reception by James Potter is fully established, 
and that bounty amounting to $90 is still justly due the claimant. 

Maj. Ben. P. Kunkle's records show the alleged payment to have been 
made on the 10th day of November, 1870, through John L. Graham, 
United States Army. 

EDWD. C. KNOWEE, 
First Lieutenant, United IStates Army. 
J NO. H. COOK, 

Chief ClerTi. 

The commission next inquired into the case of Isaac Mathews, Com- 
pany G, Third United States Colored Heavy Artillery, settled by certifi- 
cate 491113 : amount due claimant, $236.18. 



179 

Complaint of nou-receptiou of arrears of pay aud bouuty. (See L. 
S., p. 44, D, 1871, C. D. O.) 

The memtjers of the commission were duly sworn, the order conven- 
ing the same read, and the claimant and witness sworn before examina- 
tion. Upon the evidence addnced in this case, after mature delibera- 
tion, the commission are unable to give a positive decision, owing to 
the fact that claimant's testimony is not confirmed. It is, however, but 
justice to the claimant to state that due weight should be given his own 
evidence, which was clear, positive, and consistent throughout to the 
effect that he had never signed any vouchers or received any money in 
payment of his claim, ($236.18.) 

Major Runkle's records show the alleged payment to have been made 
September 23, 1870, through '' Graham." 

ED WD. C. KNOWEE, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Clerk. 

The commission then adjourned, at 1 p. m., to 10 a. m., Thursday, 
November 30, 1871. 

Thursday, November 30, 1871 — 10 a. m. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, tirst lieutenant United States Army, and 
John H. Cook, chief clerk, «S:c. 

No cases having been presented for investigation, the commission ad- 
journed at 4 p. m., to meet in Lexington, Ky., at the office of the 
Freedmeu's Bank, at 10 a. m,, Fiida^-, December 1, 1871. 

Lexington, Ky., Friday, December 1, 1871. 
The commission met at 11 a. m., at the Freedmen's Bank. 
E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and John H. Cook, 
chief clerk, &c. 

The case of Ann Stone (widow of Rice Stone, late private Company 
E, Sixth United States Armv, Cavalrv,) was called for investigation. 
Certificate, 466138 ; amount due, .$433.04. 

Complaint of non-reception of full amount of arrears of pay and 
bounty. (See No. S., 16 vol., C. D. C. B., B. E., F. and A. L., 1869.) 

The commission were duly sworn, and the oath administered to the 
claimant and witness before examination. After mature deliberation 
upon the evidence adduced, the commission conclude that the claim of 
non reception of the full amount by Ann Stone is fully established, and 
that A. P. and B., amounting to $233.94, are still justly due the claim- 
ant. 

Maj. Ben. P. Eunkle's records show that the alleged payment was 
made through J. L. Graham, United States Army, on the 17th of May, 
1869. 

EDWD. C. KNOWEE, 

First Lieutenant, U. S. A. 
JNO. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

After taking additional evidence in the cases of Ann Farrus and 
Jordon Wilson, (see cases No. 54 and V, recorded above,) the commis- 
sion, at 5 p. m., adjourned to 9 a. m. Saturday, December 2, 1871. 



i8o 

Saturday, December 2, 1871 — 9 a. m. 

The commission met pursuaDt to adjournment. 

Present: E. C. Knower, first lieutenant Dnited States Army, and 
J. H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The case of William Stewart, late private Company A, Twelfth 
United States Colored Heavy Artillery, was called for investigation. 
Settled by certificate 497931; 'amount due, $100. 

Complaint of non-reception of bounty. (See No. 438 A, 1871. C. D. 

B. R. F. and A. L.) 

The members of the commission were duly sworn, and the oath 
administered to the claimant and witnesses. After mature deliberation 
upon the evidence adduced, the commission are unable to give a posi- 
tive decision, owing to the fact that the claimant's testimony is not con- 
firmed by other witnesses. Justice, however, to the claimant compels 
us to state that his own evidence is clear, positive, and consistent 
throughout to the effect that he has not received the amount claimed, 
($100.) Should an affidavit, as required by the commission, be for- 
warded by the claimant his case will be fully substantiated. 

The commission respectfully request delay for reasonable time in any 
intended action on this complaint till claimant is heard from. Major 
Eunkle's records show alleged payment to have been made July 25, 
1870, through J. L. Graham, United States Army. 

EDW'D C. KIs'OWER, 

First Lieutenant,, U. 8. A. 
J. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The case of Betsy Berry (widow of Jesse Berry, late private Company 

C, One hundred and fourteenth United States Colored Troops) was next 
called. Settled by certificate No. 575755 ; amount due, $176.60. 

Complaint of non-reception of full amount of arrears of pay and 
bounty. (See 1582 A, 1871. C. D. Bur. R. F. and A. L.) Previous to 
examination the members of the commission were duly sworn and the 
oath administered to the claimant. After mature deliberation uj)ou the 
evidence adduced in this case, the commission decide : 

That from lack of evidence confirming the claimant's testimony, no 
positive conclusion can be reached, but the commission are fully con- 
vinced that the claimant has not received the sum claimed, ($121.60,) 
and for the reason given in case No. 5. 

Major Runkle's records show the alleged full payment to have been 
February 28, 1871, through S. G. Burbridge. 

ED. C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
J. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

Having examined additional witnesses in the cases of Ann Farms, 
Ann Stone, and Jordon Wilson, (see cases Nos. IV, V, and VIII, re- 
corded above,) the commission adjourned at 1 p. m. to meet at the office 
of H. H. Ray, Louisville, Ky., at 9 a. m., on Monday, December 4, 1871. 

Louisville, Ky., Monday, December 4, 1871. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant United States Army, and J. 
H. Cook, chief clerk. 



Ibl 

The case of Samuel Raglaud (late private Company D, Oae liimdred 
and fifteenth United States Colored Troops ; settled by certificate 548760 ; 
amount due claimant, $88.50) was called for investigation. Complaint 
of non-reception of bounty. (No papers.) The members of the commis- 
sion were duly sworn, the order convening the same read, and the oath 
administered to the claimant before examination. After mature delib- 
eration upon the evidence adduced, the commission decide : 

That the claim of non-reception by Samuel Raglaud is fully estab- 
lished, and that bounty amounting to $88.50 is still justly due the 
claimant. 

The records of Major Eunkle show that vouchers were sent to O. P. 
Johnson, Hartford, Ky., January 5, 1871, for signature and return, where 
monej^ was to be sent in payment of the claim. Major Eunkle's records, 
however, do not show payment. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
J. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The case next called was that of Luther Johnson, Company F, Fifteenth 
United States Colored Troops ; settled by certificate 543759 ; amount 
due claimant, $310.40. 

Complaint of non-reception of arrears due from Government. (See 352 
B, 1871. C. D. O.) 

The commission having been duly sworn, and the order convening 
the same read, and the oath administered to the claimant before exam- 
ination, after mature deliberation upon the evidence adduced, are unable 
to give a positive decision, owing to the fact that the claimant's state- 
ment is not confirmed by other witnesses. It is, however, but just to 
the claimant to state that his own evidence is clear, jiositive, and con- 
sistent throughout to the effect that he has not received the amount 
claimed, $310.40. Should an affidavit, as required by the commission, 
be forwarded by the claimant, his case will be fully substantiated. The 
commission respectfully request delay, for a reasonable time, in any 
intended action on this complaint till claimant is heard from. 

Major Runkle's records allege date of payment to have been made 
July 25, 1870, through J. L. Graham, U. S. A. 

ED. C. KNOWER, 
First-Lieutenant, United States Army. 
JOHN H. COOK, 

Chief Clerl. 

The commission then adjourned at 5 p. m. to 9 a. m. Tuesday, Decem- 
ber 5, 1871. 

Tuesday, December 5, 1871 — 9 a. m. 

The commission met pursuant to adjournment. 

Present : E. C. Knower, first lieutenant, United States Army, and 
J. H. Cook, chief clerk. 

The commission proceeded to inquire into the case of John Dudley, 
late private Company A, One hundredth United States Colored Trooj^s ; 
settled by certificate 577703 ; amouut due claimant, $188.50. 

Complaint of non-reception of bounty. 

The members of the commission were duly sworn, the order conven- 



Ib2 

• 

ing the same read, and the oath adiniuistered to the claimant and wit- 
nesses before examination. After mature deliberation upon the evidence 
adduced, the commission decide that the claim of non-reception is fully 
established, and that bounty amounting to $188.50 is still justly due 
the claimant. 

Major Kunkle's records show the alleged payment to have been made 
June 26, 1871, through himself. 

E. C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
J. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 

The commission next inquired into the case of James Valentine, late 
private Company B, One hundred and eighth United States Colored 
Troops. Settled by certificate 332112. Amount due claimant $180.40. 
Complaint of non-reception of bounty. 

The members of the commission were duly sworn, the order conven- 
ing the same read, and the oath administered to the claimant and wit- 
ness before examination. After mature deliberation upon the evidence 
adduced, the commission decide that the claim of non-reception by James 
Valentine is fully established, and that bounty amounting to $186.40 is 
still justly due the claimant. 

Major Euukle's records show the alleged payment to have been made 
July 17, 1868, through J. L. Graham. 

The commission then adjourned at 3 p. m. sine die. 

EDW'D C. KNOWER, 
First Lieutenant, United States Army. 
J. H. COOK, 

Chief Cleric. 



Exhibit Y^ 

$90.J 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 20th day of January, 1872, from 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner Bureau 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, ninety dollars in full for 
bounty, as per Treasury certificate No. 577692, after deducting attor- 
ney's fees for collection. 

his 

(Signed) PRESTON + BARRETT. 

mark. 

Witness: 

Samuel Mayett, 

Collector Internal Eevenue, Seventh District Indiana. 
H. D. Scott. 



Exhibit Z\ 
$325.66.] 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 21st day of November, 1871^ 
from Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, United States Army, Commissioner 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, three hundred 
and twenty-five dollars and sixty-six cents in full for arrears of pay and 



i83 

bounty, as per Treasury certificate No. 568912, after deductiug- attor- 
ney's fees for collection. 

her 

CECELIA + MATTINGLY, 

mark. 

mother of David Mills, deceased, late sergeant Company G, One hun- 
dred and twenty-fifth Eegiment, United States Colored Troops. 

Witness: 

James M. Fidler. 
Samuel W, Ferris, 

Captain Fourth Infantry, U. S. A. 



Exhibit A^ 

Treasury Department, 

Second Auditor's Office, 

April 10, 1873. 

Sir : I have the honor to state that numerous complaints are being 
made to this of&ce by colored soldiers or their heirs, of the non-receipt 
of their pay and bounty money, although the records of this office show 
settlements of their claims, and the records of the late Freedmen's Bu- 
reau show payment of the proceeds of the Treasury certificates to the 
claimants. 

Evidence presented to this office, as well as before the court-martial 
convened at Louisville, Ky., for the trial of John L. Graham and Benja- 
min P. Kunkle, shows conclusively that certain claimants have been 
defrauded of their money, and that in some instances the receipts and 
vouchers upon which the money is claimed to have been j)aid are false 
and fictitious or procured npon fraudulent representations. 

Under the act of Congress approved March 30, 1867, the settlement 
of the claims and payment to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bu- 
reau are regarded as relieving the accounting officers of the Treasury of 
further responsibility relating to the payment of the claims; but as 
these iiarties have valid claims against the Government, which ulti- 
mately will have to be paid, the question arises, what action shall the 
Government now pursue upon these comiilaints with a view to its own 
protection and that of the claimants ; whether the cases shall be inves- 
tigated and prosecuted under the direction of the Secretary of War, or 
under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury through the De- 
partment of Justice. 

As there are some cases now before me in which criminal action is not 
barred by the statute of limitations, immediate action seems to be re- 
quired, and this letter is addressed to you that I may be informed of 
your views upon the subject. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

' E. B. FEENCH, 

Auditor. 



Exhibit B^. 

War Department, 

Adjutant-General's Office, 
Washington, I). C, April 15, 1873. 
Second Auditor, V. 8. Treasury : 

Sir : Eeferring to your letter of the 10th instant, as to complaints 
by colored claimants of the non-receipt of their pay and bounty money, 



1 84 

the records showing adjustment of the claims and payment of the same, 
and asking whether " the cases shall be investigated and prosecuted 
under the direction of the Secretary of War or under the direction of 
the Secretary of the Treasury," I have the honor to inform you that the 
acting Secretary of War has decided that the War Department, through 
the Department of Justice, will undertake the prosecution of the par- 
ties connected with the preparation of the " false and fictitious" re- 
ceipts and vouchers, or the " fraudulent representations." 

To that end I will be pleased to have you transmit through me, for 
the Secretary of War, all papers and evidence in your ofdce bearing 
upon the cases. 

Concert of action will be maintaiued, of course, between the Treas- 
ury and War Departments, through the proper offices, during the ac- 
tion now contemplated. 

1 am, sir, very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 



Official copy : 



Adju tant- General. 

E. D. tow:j^send, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit C^ 

[D. O. Form "A."] 

War DEPART3IENT, Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 
AND Abandoned Lands, Disbursing Office, 

Washington, D. C, , 187-. 

To Cashier Freedmen^s Savings and Trust Company, at : 

Sir: I inclose herewith check Xo. — , dated Washington, D. C, , 

187-, on the United States Treasurer for $ to the order of , 

in payment of the bounty of , late Company — , Regi- 
ment United States Colored Troops ; also vouchers for signature in du- 
plicate, which you will please have witnessed by at least two witnesses 
who write, and return the vouchers immediately to this office. 

After proper identification of the claimant, and indorsement of the 
check, you will please cash it and pay into the hands of the claimant 
the exact amount in "current funds." 

If the claimant does not appear within thirty days from receipt hereof, 
return check and vouchers to this office. 

By order of Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, United States Army, Com- 
missioner. 



Major and Disbursing Officer, 



Exhibit D^ 

Treasury Department, 

Second Auditor's Office, 
April 9, 1873. 
Major J. M. Brown, 

Washington, D. C, Locl;-Box Xo. 197 : 
Sir : In answer to your communication of the 2d instant, I have to 
state that in the settlement of the account of Gen. O. O. Howard, late 



i85 

Commissioner of Freedmen's Bureau, «S:c., &c., as reported to the Second 
Comptroller, January 31, 1873, no deductions were made on account of 
stoppages arising in said account during the time from February 5 to 
June 30, 1872, the period during which you acted as chief disbursing 
officer of the Bureau. 
Kespectfullv, 

E. B. FRENCH, Anditor. 
By J. M. S. 



Exhibit E^ 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

^Vashington, D. C, April 23, 1873. 

Major J. M. Brown, 

Lock-Box JS^o. 197, Washington, D. C. : 
Sir : Your money-accounts as disbursing officer in the Bureau of 
Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands to June 30, 1872, having 
been audited, transmitted to the Second Comptroller, and by him re- 
turned to this office, have been found correct and closed, and your 
property-returns as chief quartermaster Bureau of Eefugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands to September 30, 1872, have been examined 
in this Office, and also found correct and closed. 
Verv respectful Iv, yours, 

ALLAN EUTHEEFOED, Auditor. 



Exhibit F^ 

Jackson, Miss., December 10, 1873. 

Hon. George H. Williams, 

Attorney- General, WasMngto?i, J>. C: 

Sir : The inclosed papers described in the schedule therewith are 
respectfully returned, to be transmitted to the War Department. 

The papers were forwarded to this office through the Department of 
Justice, to be used in the suits against O. C. French and his sureties. 
These suits were disposed of by judgments by default in favor of the 
United States, at the late November term of the United States circuit 
court. The letters from the Department of Justice, relating to these 
suits, addressed to this Office, bear the following dates : August 19, 
1872, September 25, 1872, December 7, 1872, January 4, 1873, January 
7, 1873, May 29,1873, July 8, 1873, September 19, 1873, October 15, 1873. 

Eeferring to your letter of October 15, 1873, I have to say that Mr. 
French placed two drafts in my hands for the j)ayment of three thou- 
sand and eight hundred and forty-one dollars and 54 cents, before the 
commencement of the late November term of court, that being the sum 
remaining due upon the account certified by the War Department Sep- 
tember 24, 1862, (1872?) after the payment made by William Noonan, 
a surety on French's bond of $3,000, (of which you informed me in 
your letter of September 19, 1873.) 

These drafts were not honored, and have been returned to Mr. French. 
I gave Mr. French time until the last day of said term of court in 



i86 

■svhicli to pay, witli instructions to make deposit of $3,841yy„, at the 
sub-Treasury in New Orleans, Treasury at Wasliingcon, or any other 
United States depository, or with court in satisfaction of the claim on 
the account referred to. He failed to make the deposit, and I took 
judgment by default against him and his surities, as follows: 

United States ) 

vs. > IGGO. Action of debt for the recovery of $8,001.4:0. 

O. C. French. ) 

Judgment by default for $8,001.40, to be satisfied upon payment of 
$5,300.07 principal, and $1,723.00 interest and costs, explained as fol- 
lows : 

Offset entered by district attorney for defendants, $3,000, (amount 
paid by William Noonan, surety,) less $298.07 additional claims trans- 
mitted by War Department to district attorney, not embraced in orig- 
inal amount sued lor. 

United ^States )iqq^^ Del^t on bond for penalty thereof, viz, 
O. B. French et al. \ ^^i^^^- 

Judgment by default for penalty of bond, $5,000 to be satisfied upon 
the payment of $2,000 principal and $270 interest and costs, exi)lained 
as follows : 

Oft"-set entered by district attorney for defendants, $3,000, amount 
paid by William Noonan, surety on said bond. 

I have no legal evidence to support a demand of more than was shown 
to be due upon the certified account referred to, but I felt justified in 
taking judgment for all that the War Department alleged to be due on 
the claims of parties not embraced in that account. 

If Mr. French can satisfy the War Department that any or all of these 
claims were paid by him to the proper parties, I have no doubt that 
such sum or sums will be refunded to him or his sureties on a showing 
of the facts. Execution will issue in due course of law. 
I am. sir, very respectfully, » 

FELIX BEANNIGAN, 
United States Attorney, Southern District Mississippi. 



Schedule of items of indebtedness comprised in the amount recovered by the Uuited 

States on a judgment by default in suits Nos. 16G0 aud 1661 against O. C. French et al., 

at the November term of the Uuited States circuit court, A. D. 1873, for the southern 

district of Mississiiipi, viz : 

Balance due the United States on French's account, as certified 
by copy of the same from War Department, dated September 
24, 186— '72, (1872?) $6,841 54 

Less amount paid to War Department, as per Attorney-General's 
etter to F. Branuigan, United Stales attorney, dated Sep- 
tember 19, 1873 3,000 00 

■ $3,841 54 

Claim of Lewis Paine, discharged private of Company K, Sixth 

United States Colored Heavy Artillery 286 .50 

Claim of John Williams, late of Company M, Sixth United 

States Colored Heavy Artillery 285 50 

Ellen Branch, mother of Nathan Branch, deceased, of Company 

F, Sixth United States Colored Heavy Artillery 247 93 



Claim of Joseph Moore, late of Companv H, Fiftieth Uuited 

States Colored lufantry ." $300 00 

fl, 119 93 

Claim of Johuson Minor, late of Company G, Eighty-fourth 

United States Colored Infantry 300 CO 

Priscilla Hudson, widow of Paul Hudson, late private of Com- 
pany B, Fifty-eighth United States Colored lufiintry 98 00 

398 60 

Total amount principal recovered 5, 360 07 

Interest thereon 723 60 

Office of United States Attorney, 

Southern District of Mississippi, 

J((cJcso7i, December 10, 1873. 

I hereby certify that the above statement is correct and true. 

FELIX BRANNIGAX, 

Uuited States Attorney. 

I 



DEPART3IENT OF JUSTICE, 

Washington, December IG, 1873. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War : 
Sir : Referring to the previous correspondence in relation to the 
indebtedness of O. C French, late disbursing agent Freedmen's Bureau, 
I now have the honor to return the papers transmitted by you in the 
case, and also to inclose a copy of a letter from the United States attor- 
ney for the southern district of Mississippi, from which it appears that 
iudgment was taken by default against said French and sureties for the 
sum of $8,061.40. 

Very respectfullv, 

GEORGE H. WILLIAMS, 

Attorney- General. 



Exhibit G\ 

Treasury Department, 

Second Auditor's Office, 

.March 8, 1872. 

Sir : I return herewith account-current, abstracts of moneys received, 
abstracts'of moneys expended, and vouchers on account of pay, bounty, 
prize-money, &c., due colored soldiers and sailors from February 5th to 
29th, 1872, for correction, this Office and the War Department not recog- 
nizing you as the disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, but au 
assistant. 

All the papers should be made out in the name of General O. O. 
Howard per Major J. M. Brown, assistant disbursing officer. 
Respectfully, 

E. B. FREXCH, Auditor. 
By J. M. S. 
Major J. M. BR0^VN, 

Assistant Disbursina Officer Freedmen's Bureau. 



i88 

Exhibit H^ 

Treasury Department, 

Second Comptroller's Office, 

February 28, 1872. 

Sir: The following is a copy of a letter just received by this Office 
from Maj. C. T. Larned, paymaster, Uuited States Army: 

Paymaster-General's Office, War Department, 

Washington, February 27, 1872. 
To the Second Comptroller : 

Sir : One hundred and sixty-four Treasury certificates, covering the sum of .$28,506.26, 
payahle to General O. O. Howard, Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, and receipted by J. M. Brown as major and disbursing officer, for the 
Commissioner, have been sent to this Office for payment. 

I respectfully ask to be advised if the Commissioner in question can convey to 
another party the authority to receipt Treasury certificates issued in his favor ; if there 
is any evidence on file in your Office that such authority has been given to the said 
J. M. Brown, and if you will confirm the i^ayment of certificates receipted as above 
stated. 

Respectfully, &c., 

CHAS. T. LARNED, 

Paymaster, U. S. A. 

Please iuform me if you have conferred with the Secretaries of War 
and of the Treasury in relation to this matter, and if Major Brown has 
beeu authorized to receipt certificates issued in your name. If so, 
please furnish this Office with a copj^ of such authority. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. M. BEODHEAD, Comptroller. 

General O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner Bureau B. F. and A. L. 



Exhibit P. 

Office of the Commissioner, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington City, March 1, 1872. 

To the Second Comptroller of the Treasury : 

Sir : In reply to your communication of the 2Sth ultimo, based on 
the letter of Maj. Chas. T. Larned, paymaster, United States Army, of 
the 27tli ultimo, in reference to the signing of one hundred and sixty- 
four Treasury certificates, payable to General O. O. Howard, Commis- 
sioner, &c., by Maj. J. M. Brown, disbursing officer for the Commis- 
sioner, I have the honor to state that it had been the practice for 
General Geo. W. Balloch, late disbursing officer, to sign these certificates 
for the Commissioner, and Major Brown, the present disbursing officer, 
in the above cases followed that jjrecedeut. 
If you can permit this to be done, it will be of great assistance to me. 
Verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., U. S. A., Commissioner. 



159 
[Indorsement.] 

Eespectfully returned. If General Howard will authorize Major 
Brown in writing to sign for him the Treasury certificates referred to, 
it will be sufficient and satisfactory. 

J. M. BRODHEAD, 

Comptroller. 
{ Second Comptroller's Office, March 2, 1872. 



Exhibit J^ 

War DEPART:vrENT, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, February 4, 1872. 
Maj. J. M. Brown, 

Disbursing Officer, d'c, Bureau of B., F. and A. L. : 
Sir : By authority of the Secretary of War you will hereafter make 
all disbursements pertaining to the "appropriation of Congress" and 
the "bounty-fund." 

The Commissioner will turn over to you, upon receipts, all moneys, 
records, &c., pertaining to those funds. 
Very respectfully, &c., 

0. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., TJ. S. A., Commissioner. 



Exhibit K\ 

[Circular No. 5.] 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, May 30, 1865. 

Rules and regulations for assistant commissioners. 

I. The headquarters of the assistant commissioners will, for the pres- 
ent, be established as follows, viz : 

For Virginia at Richmond, Va. 

North Carolina at Raleigh, N. C. 

South Carolina and Georgia at Beaufort, S. C. 

Alabama at Montgomery, Ala. 

Kentucky and Tennessee at Nashville, Tenn. 

Missouri and Arkansas at Saint Louis, Mo. 

Mississippi at Vicksburgh, Miss. 

Louisiana _ at New Orleans, La. 

Florida at Jacksonville, Fla. 

II. Assistant commissioners, not already at their posts, will make all 
haste to establish their headquarters, acquaint themselves with their 
fields, and do all in their power to quicken and direct the industry of 
refugees and freedmen, that they and their communities may do all that 
can be done for the season, already so far advanced, to prevent starva- 
tion and suffering, and promote good order and prosperity. Their at- 



teutiou is invited to Circular Xo. 2, from this Bureau, iudicative of the 
objects to be attained. 

III. Eelief establishments will be discontinued as speedily as the ces- 
sation of hostilities and the return of industrial pursuits will permit. 
Great discrimination will be observed in administering relief, so as to 
include none that are not absolutely necessitous and destitute. 

IV. Every eftbrt will be made to render the people self-supporting. 
Government supplies will only be temporarily issued to enable destitute 
persons speedily to support themselves, and exact accounts must be kept 
with each individual or community, and held as a lien upon their crops. 
The ration for the destitute will be that already provided in General Or- 
ders Xo. 30, War Department, series 1864. The commissioners are es- 
liecially to remember that their duties are to enforce, with reference to 
these classes, the laws of the United States. 

V. Loyal refugees, who have been driven from their homes, will, on 
their return, be protected from abuse, and the calamities of their situa- 
tion relieved as far as possible. If destitute, the}^ will be aided with 
transportation and food when deemed expedient, while in transitu, re- 
turning to their former homes. 

VI. Simple good faith, for which we hope on all hands from those con- 
cerned in the passing away of slavery, will especiallj^ relieve the assist- 
ant commissioners in the discharge of their duties toward the freedmen, 
as well as promote the general welfare. The assistant commissioners 
w'ill, everywhere, declare and protect their freedom, as set forth in the 
proclamations of the President and the laws of Congress. 

VII. In all places where there is an interruption of civil law, or in 
which local courts, by reason of old codes, in violation of the freedom 
guaranteed by the proclamation of the President and the laws of Con- 
gress, disregard the negro's right to justice before the laws, in not allow- 
ing him to give testimony, the control of all subjects relating to refugees 
and freedmen being committed to this Bureau, the assistant commission- 
ers will adjudicate, either themselves or through ofticers of their appoint- 
ment, all difficulties arising between negroes themselves, or between 
negroes and whites or Indians, except those in military service, so far 
as recognizable by military authority, and not taken cognizance of by 
the other tribunals, civil or military, of the United States. 

VIII. Xegroes must be free to choose their own employers, and be 
paid for their labor. Agreements should be free, hona-Jide acts, approved 
by proper officers, and their inviolability enforced on both parties. The 
old system of overseers, tending to compulsory unpaid labor and acts of 
cruelty and oppression, is prohibited. The unity of families, and all the 
rights of the family relation, will be carefully guarded. In places where 
the local statutes make no provisions for the marriage of persons of color, 
the assistant commissioners are authorized to designate officers who shall 
keep a record of marriages, which may be solemnized by any ordained 
minister of the gospel, who shall make a return of the same, with such 
items as may be required for registration at x)laces designated by the 
assistant commissioner. Kegistrations already made by United States 
officers will be carefully preserved. 

IX. Assistant commissioners will instruct their receiving and disburs- 
ing officers to make requisitions upon all officers, civil or military, in 
charge of funds, abandoned lands, &c., within their respective territo- 
ries, to turn over the same in accordance with the orders of the Presi- 
dent. They will direct their medical officers to ascertain the facts and 
necessities connected with the medical treatment and sanitary condition 
of refugees and freedmen. They will instruct their teachers to collect 



191 

the facts in reference to the progress of the work of education, and aid 
it with as few changes as possible to the close of the present season. 
During the school vacations of tbe hot months, especial attention will 
be given to the provision for the next year. 

X. Assistant couimissiouers will aid refugees and freedmen in secur- 
ing titles to land according to law. This may be done for them as indi- 
viduals or by encouraging joint companies. 

XI. This Bureau being in the War Department, all rules and regula- 
tions governing officers under accountability for property apply as set 
forth in the Revised Regulations of the Army. All other persons in the 
service of the Bureau are also subject to military jurisdiction. 

XII. Assistant commissioners will require regular and complete reports 
from their subordinates, and will themselves report quarterly, as directed 
by law, and correspond frequently with this Bureau, directing to the 
Commissioner in person. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Major- General, Commissioner Bureau of Refugees , Freedmen^ tCc. 

Approved June 2, 18G5. 

AXDREW JOHXSOX, 
President of the United States. 



Exhibit L^ 

[Circular No. 17.] 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Binds, 

Washington, September 20, 1865. 

The following regulations are established for the government of the 
financial affairs of this Bureau : 

I. Every assistant commissioner is held accountable for all moneys 
received and disbursed in the State or district under his control. 

II. The forms laid down in the regulations of the Quartermaster's 
Department, governing the receipt and disbursement of money, will be 
followed in the settlement of accounts in this Bureau as nearly as prac- 
ticable. 

III. All sub-agents or officers on duty under the assistant commis- 
sioner will turn over to him, or a bonded officer of his selection, all funds 
now, or that may hereafter be, in their hands, taking his receipts therefor 
in triplicate — one of which will be forwarded direct to the Commissioner at 
Washington, the others to be retained for the settlement of their accounts 
at the Treasury. These receipts should specify, if possible, the source 
from which the money has been derived. 

IV. All sub-agents or officers requiring funds will make a monthly 
estimate in duplicate, similar to Form 9, regulations Quartermaster's 
Department, and forward the same through the assistant commissioner to 
the Commissioner at Washington for approval. If such estimate, or any 
part of it, is approved, the assistant commissioner will be ordered to 
turn over the funds to such agent or officer, holding him accountable 
therefor. Xo money will be disbursed except it has been drawn in this 
manner. 

V. Assistant commissioners will require all sub-agents or officers under 
their control, having in charge public funds of the Bureau, to render to 



192 

them, in addition to the required account to the Treasury Department, 
a monthly account with vouchers, similar to Form 10, regulations Quar- 
termaster's Department. These several accounts the assistant commis- 
sioner, after examination and approval, will consolidate and forward to 
the Commissioner at Washington on a similar form. 

VI. Assistant commissioners will also forward a consolidated monthly 
report, similar to Form 2, regulations Quartermaster's Department, 
giving the name of each offlcer employing the persons reported. 

VII. Assistant commissioners will keep all funds for which they are 
accountable, in some authorized depository of public funds, and the same 
are not to be drawn out except to till the estimates required in the 
fourth paragraph of this order. 

VIII. Vouchers should be taken and given in triplicate, one of which 
will accompany the account rendered the Commissioner at Washington, 
the two remaining copies to be used in the usual settlement with the 
Treasury Department. 

IX. This order will take efiect from the date of its reception. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Major General, Commissioner. 



Exhibit W. 

Win Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, December — , 1865. 
Hon. E. M. Stanton, 

Secretary of War: 

Sir: 

####### 

" My regulations governing officers under accountability are the same 
substantially as in the Quartermaster's Department. In circular No. 5, 
assistant commissioners were instructed as follows : 

''This Bureau being in the War Department, all rules and regulations 
governing officers under accountability for property, apply, as set forth 
in the ' Revised Regulations ' of the Array. 

"All other persons in the service of the Bureau are also subject to 
military jurisdiction. More specific regulations were issued September 

20, as per circular No. 17, to wit : " 

******* 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Major- Genera 1, Commissioner. 



Exhibit N^ 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, November 1, 18G7. 
Sir: 



Fay, bounty, and prize-money /und. 

By joint resolution of Congress, approved March 29, 1867, it was en- 
acted " that all checks and Treasury certificates to be issued in the 



193 

settlement of claims for paj', bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due 
to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives, 
now residing- or who may have resided in any State in which slavery 
existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, (18G0,) the claim for 
which has been, or may be, prosecuted by an agent or attorney, shall 
be made payable to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau." 

The first certificate was received under the above law April 17, 1867. 
Number of certificates and checks received to August 31, 

1867 4, 157 

Number of claims settled to August 31, 1867 1, 594 

Value of certificates and checks received to August 31, 

1867 $882, 596 06 

Amount paid claimants and attorneys 350, 870 96 

Balance on hand in United States Treasury 531, 725 10 

Great care and an immense amount of labor have been necessary to 
frame and develop some feasible system by which to make these pay- 
ments; a system that would insure the prompt payment of rightful 
claimants on the one hand, and prevent frauds upon the Government 
on the other. It is believed that the desired ends have been attained, 
as far as the limited resources of the Bureau will admit. 

These claimants are scattered, not only throughout the late slave 
States, but in the Northern, Middle, and Western States. 

In many localities in the late slave States the Bureau has no agent ; 
and to discover, identify, and pay claimants in such localities is an ex- 
tremely difficult matter. Payments are, however, now being made 
much more rapidly than at first, and it is hoped that as the plan pur- 
sued becomes better understood by all parties, these claims will be 
settled even more rapidly than at present. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant. 

O. O. HOWABD 
Major- General, Co))t m issioner. 



Exhibit O'. 

War Department, 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmenand Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, October 24, 1808. 
gjjj •*** *'* * * * 

Pay, bounty, and prize-money fund. 

By joint resolution of Congress, approved March 29, 18G7, it was 
enacted '' that all checks and Treasury certificates to be issued in settle- 
ment of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to 
colored soldiers or marines or their legal representatives, now residing 
or who may have resided in any State in which slavery existed in the 
year 1860, the claim for which has been or may be presented by an agent 
or attorney, shall be made payable to the Commissioner of the Freed- 
men's ^reau," 

A moiiut OD baud August 31, 13G7 $531, 625 10 

Amount received during the year 3, 439, 455 74 

Total 3,971,080 84 

Amount paid claimants and attorneys during the year 2, 557, 362 84 

Balanc? on hand August 31, 1808 1,413,718 00 

13 H e 



'94 

This balance is deposited in tlie United States Treasnry, and other 
anthorized dei)0.sitories. The system of payments at first adoi>ted is 
still followed. In the ardnous and difdcnlt task of finding, identifying, 
and paying these claimants, I have been ably assisted by agents of the 
Bnrean and officers of the Army. When it is remembered that many ot 
these claimants are not only scattered throngh the Northern and Middle 
States, bnt have re-enlisted in the liegnlar Army and are serving on onr 
extreme western frontier, the difficnlty of reaching them will be better 

understood. 

* ***** 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Major- General, Commissioner. 



Exhibit P^. 

avar depart3ient, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, October 20, 1870. 

Sir: 

******* 

' The collection and iiayment of bounties and other moneys due colored 
soldiers, sailors, and marines, in accordance with joint resolntion of 
Congress approved March 29, 1SG7, have been continued, and this im- 
portant branch of work has employed a large majority of my agents 
and clerks. To complete the evidence required in all the cases referred 
to this Bureau by the Secretary of War and the Auditors of the Treas- 
ury ; to separate the true from the false, and protect the Government 
from fraudnleut claims ; to discover and identity the claimants whose 
cases have been settled, and place in their own hands the sums awarded ; 
and to keep an exact record of every case, requires a great amount of 
clerical labor and unceasing vigilance. The number of claims settled 
duriiig the last year through the agency of this Bureau is 1,087. The 
luiraber now pending settlement in the diiferent Executive Departments 
and awaiting completion of evidence is 3,108. The amonnt of bounty- 
money, back pay, and pensions collected for the freedmen by this 
Bureau is §130,900.05. All cases intrnsted to me directly for collection 
are settled without cost of attorney's fees. Since the law of March, 
18G7, went into effect 9,022 claims have been filed in the various De- 
partments, and of these 5,108 have already been settled without cost to 
the claimants, except the necessary notarial expenses. Had these 
claims been collected through claim-agents or attorneys, the amount of 
legal fees would have been $51,080. This sum has been saved to the 
freedmen, and, judging from attempts at fraud continually occurring, 
probably many times this sum in illegal fees would have been extorted 
but for the protection of the Bureau. But, in addition to the gratuitous 
collection of claims, all certificates and checks issued by the Treasury 
Department in settlement of the claims of colored soldiers and sailors 
and their heirs are made payable to my order. Each, when ^^ceived, 
is carefully compared with the record, and every precaution is raken to 
avoid mistake in making the payments. The number of such certifi- 
cates and checks thus examined and adjusted during the last year is 
9,107, whose money value is §1,659,728.30. Nine thousand five hundred 
and seventy-three claimants have been paid, an average of thirty per 
working day, and the amount paid is §1,852,100.72. The whole amount 



195 

paid since the passage of the act (March, 1SG7) is 87,083,618.01. The 
unavoidable reduction of the number of agents in the tiekl has greatly 
increased the labors of those that remain ; and when the large extent 
of territory under the care of a single ageutis considered, together with 
the necessity of discovering and identifying every claimant, and of 
paying to him in i^ersou the amount due, it is verj- gratifying that so 
much has been accomplished. 

Complaints are often made of delay in the settlement of bounty- 
claims, and often there is just cause for complaint. Letters are daily 
received from claimants inquiring about their claims, and invoking the 
aid of the Bureau in effecting their settlement. Jn all such cases an 
investigation is at once made, and if Treasury certificates have been 
issued, measures are taken for their immediate payment. If not settled, 
inquiry is instituted at the proper Department, and in many cases it is 
found that the claims are on file, and settlement delayed awaiting 
necessary evidence, which the attorneys of record have failed to sup]:>]y. 
A description of the evidence required is then obtained, and the agent 
of the Bureau in the vicinity where the claimant resides is directed to 
supply the evidence. By this means the evidence in 1,508 cases, filed 
by attorneys and claim-agents, and suspended by the Second Auditor 
because the attorneys had failed to furnish the necessary evidence, by 
reason of death, retirement from business, willful negligence, or other 
causes, has been perfected through the agency of this Bureau. In ad- 
dition to the above, 105 contested cases, referred to me by the Second 
Auditor, have been taken up for investigation, and legal proceedings 
have been instituted against parties charged with frauds against the 
Government. 

Prior to the passage of the joint resolution approved March 29, 1807, 
and before this Bureau had charge of the work, Treasury certificates, 
issued in settlement of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other 
moneys to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, were made payable to 
the order of the claimant, and forwarded to the attorney or agent who 
had prosecuted the claim. Many such certificates have been paid to 
attorneys upon forged assignments, and thus the claimants defrauded. 
In not a few cases of this kind I have succeeded in recovering the 
amounts fraudulently withheld by attorneys, and the same has been 
paid to the proper claimants. The law of March, 1807, prohibits the re- 
cognition of Ruy transfer or assignment of checks and certificates, and 
requires that they be drawn " payable to the order of the Commissioner 
of the Freedmen's Bureau." Still, the certificates, together with the 
soldiers' "discharges," were sent to the attorneys, many of whom, in- 
stead of forwarding tkem to me for prompt payment, purposely with- 
held them, to exact a fee for their services in addition to the legal fee. 
Many such "discharges" and certificates have been recovered, but it is 
known that a large number are yet in the hands of various claim-agents 
and attorneys. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. IIOWABD, 
Major-General U. S. A., Commissioner. 

financial eeport. 

General: 

******* 

Pail, hounty, and prize-money fund. 

Under joint resolution of Congress, approved March 29, 1867, it was 
enacted that all checks and Treasurv certificates to be issued in settle- 



196 

inent of claims for pay, bouuty, prize- uioiiey, or other moneys due to 
colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or tbeir legal representatives, now 
residing, or who may have resided, in any State in which slavery existed 
in 18G0, the claim for which has been, or may be, prosecuted by au 
agent or attorney, shall be made payable to the Commissioner of the 
Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the agent or attorney his legal fees, 
and pay the balance to the claimant on satisfatory identification. 

Balance on hand August 31, 1800 SI, 220, 066 52 

Amount received during the year 1, 659, 728 36 

Total 2, 879, 794 88 

Amount paid attorneys and claimants during the year. 1, 852, 100 72 

Balance on hand August 31, 1870 1, OL'7, 694 16 

iSTumber of Treasury certificates and checks received during the 
year, 9,105 ; number of claimants paid during the year, 9,573. 

Total amount paid from the passage of the act to August 31, 1870, 
$7,683,613.61. • 

ISTo new features in this branch of the work have been presented this 
year. It has been as heretofore constant warfare between us and those 
who seek to avail themselves of this gratuity of the Government to its 
soldiers aiul sailors. Au unavoidable reduction of the number of 
agents in the field has greatly increased the labors of those that 
remain, and when it is considered how large an extent of territory is 
under the care of a single agent, it seems almost beyond belief that so 
much has been accomplished. 

During the year several notorious offenders have been convicted, and 
several are now under indictment, and the action of our agents in 
bringing to justice these parties is very commendable, 

I am, sir, verv respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner. 



Exhibit Q\ 

War Depaetment, 
Bureau Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, October 20, 1871. 

Sir: * * * * * 

The collection and payment of bounties and other moneys due col- 
ored soldiers, sailors, and marines, in accordance with Joint resolution 
of Congress approved March 20, 1807, have been continued, and this 
important work has employed nearly all the agents and clerks remain- 
ing on duty in the Bureau. The same vigilance and patient labor as 
in former years have been required to separate the true from the false 
claims, to discover and identify the claimants to whom money is due, 
and to protect them from fraud. The following table shows the work 
done in collecting claims : 

Number of claims awaiting settlement at date of last annual report 3, 108 

Number of claims received since that date 1, 012 

Total , 4,120 



197 

Number of claims settled since date of last annual report 1, 128 

Number of claims awaiting settlement August 31, 1871 2, 992 

Total 4, 120 

Total value of certificates received in settlement of claims filed by this 

Bureau since date of last anuual report |56, 581 79 

Number of contested and douhtful claims filed by attorneys, and referred 

to this Bureau for investigation since date of aunnal report 255 

Number of discharge-certificates, with letters of rejection, received for 

delivery to claimants iu rejected cases, filed by attorneys 2, 838 

Since tbe law of March, 18G7, went into effect, 10,034 claims have 
been filed by tliis Bureau iu the several Departments, and of these 0,236 
have beeu settled without cost to the claimants, excepting the necessary 
notarial fees. Had these claims been collected through claim-agents or 
attorneys, the amount of legal fees would have been $02,300. This sum 
has been saved to the freedmen, and a much larger sum has been indi- 
rectly saved by their protection from fraud. 

In addition to this gratuitous work of collecting claims, all certificates 
and checks issued by the Treasury Department in settlement of the 
claims of colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their heirs, are, iu 
accordance with the law of March, 1867, "made payable to the Com- 
missioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the agent or attor- 
ney his legal fees, and pay the balance to the claimant on satisfactory 
identification." 

Each certificate and check when received is carefully compared with 
the record, and every precaution is taken to avoid mistake in making 
the payments. The following schedule shows the amount of money and 
the number of claims paid: 

Balance of pay, bounty, and prize-money on hand Au- 
gust 31, 1870 ... $1,027,09116 

Amount received from August 31, 1870, to August 31, 
1871 100, 709 13 

- Total 1,518,403 29 

Amount paid claimants and attorneys during the year. . 734, 432 55 

Balance on hand August 31, 1871 784, 030 74 

Number of Treasury certificates and checks received during the 

year \ 2,817 

Number of claimants paid during the year. 4, 138 

Total amount from the passage of the act March, 1807, to August 31, 
1871, $8,418,051.10. 

Complaints are often made of delay in the settlement of bounty-claims. 
In many cases such delay is caused by the failure of attorneys to fur- 
nish the necessary evidence to the Treasury Department. And when 
settlement is made, and the certificate sent to this Bureau, in some 
cases a considerable delay is unavoidable in the payment. 

The small appropriation for this work has rendered it impossible to 
employ a sufficient number of agents to discover and identify the claim- 
ants, now scattered over the whole country, as promptly as could be 

desired. 

******* 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier General, U. S. A., Commissioner. 



198 

Exhibit El 

March 2, 1872. 
To the Second Comptroller of the Treasuy : 

Sir : Eeferring to your indorsemeut of this date ou my communica- 
tion of 1st March, 1872, I hereby confirm the action of Major J. M. 
Brown, disbursing officer of this Bureau, in signing for me one hundred 
and sixty-four (101) Treasury certificates therein referred to, and 1 au- 
thorize Major Brown to sign for me all Treasury certificates payable 
through me as Commissioner, &c. 

Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

0.0. HOWAED, 
Brigadier General, U. S. A., Commissioner. 



Exhibit S"^ 



May 13, 18G9. 



Cashier First ^^Tational Bank, Ironton, Ohio : 

Sir : Inclosed I send you my check, No. 5,312, on assistant treasurer 
at New York, for S363.16, which amount please pay to Mariom Hord, 
a colored woman, upon satisfactory identification. 
Eespectfullv, yours, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 



Exhibit T\ 

Washington, November 8, 1872. 
Hon. ^y. W. Belknap, Secretary of War : 

Sir : In my evidence before the court-martial in the case of Maj. B. P. 
Euukle, I testified that in July, 1871, (exact date not now remembered,) 
I took from Major Eunkle certain bounty- vouchers as paid, which had not 
been paid, trusting to his promise to pay them as soon as he returned to 
Kentucky. 

I also stated, I think, that I expected he would get the money ou some 
expense-vouchers of General Burbridge, which would enable to do this. 

lomitted to state thisimportantfact, thatwhenMajor Eunkle got ready 
to go back to Kentucky, on the 27th day of July, I paid him $1,331.03 to 
re-imburse him for mistakes made by his agents in paying bounties to 
the wrong parties, which he had been obliged to assume ; so that, not- 
withstanding he did not get the money on the Burbridge vouchers, he 
had ample means when he returned to have kept his promise to me. 

I hope this explanation may relieve my testimony from the suspicion 
of "connivance," as stated in the remarks of the judge-advocate. 
Very respectfully, 

GEO.W. BALLOCH. 



Exhibit U'. 

April 17. 9. 
Lieut. Col. Fred. S. Palmer, 

Memphis, Tenn. : 
Sir : I have received draft for $1,158.32 to cover the following bounty- 
claims returned to me : 

William Austin, J, 63 $6 90 

Jacksou Doyle, J, 55 <55 50 



199 

John Frazier, D, 61 |i203 50 

Joseph Hervev, F, 55 292 91 

Julius Joues,H, 61 222 03 

Richard Loug. K, 61 218 98 

George Taylor, F, 110 187 50 

1, 158 32 
Should auy of tbe above ever ai)ply, wbeii you Avrite for it state the 
time it was returned to me. 
Eespectfully, yours, 

GEO. W. B ALLOC H, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief JDishursing Officer. 



Exhibit V\ 

Know all men bv these presents, that St. Clair Mandeville, as princi- 
pal, and Edwin Tribble, J. 11. Terry, D. Maguire, J. M. Blanchard, and 
Ebenezer Warren, sureties, are held and firmly l)ound in .soUdo in the 
sum of ten thousand ($10,000) dollars unto Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, 
Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lands, and his successors in offlce, for the payment of which said sum 
we bind ourselves in solido, our heirs, executors, and administrators, 
firmly by these i^resents. 

The conditions of the above obligation are such that whereas the said 
Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, Commissioner, as aforesaid, on the 28th day of 
May, A. D. 1867, duly appointed said St. Clair Mandeville "agent" 
of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands at New 
Orleans, La., to pay bounties, &c., due colored soldiers, sailors, and ma- 
rines, under joint resolution approved March 29, 18G7 : 

Now, therefore, if the above-bound St. Clair Mandeville shall well and 
faithfully perform all and singular tbe duties devolving upon him as 
disbursing agent by virtue of bis said appointment, and shall, when 
duly required, render full and complete accounts of any and all sums 
of money received by him in such behalf, and shall also render full and 
satisfactory accounts of all disbursements made by him in tbe discharge 
of said duties, and shall not owe any money nor be in arrear therefor 
upon final settlement of said agency, then the above obligation to be 
void, otherwise to remain in full force and eifect. 
Dated at New Orleans, La., this fourth day of June, A. D. 18G7. 
(Signed) ST. CLAIR MANDEVILLE. 

(Signed) EDWIN TRIBBLE. 

(Signed) J. R. TERRY. 

(Signed) D. MAGUIRE. 

(Signed) J. M. BLANCHARD. 

(Signed) EBENEZER WARREN. 

Approved : 

(Signed) JOS. A. MOWER, 

Col. Thirty-mntk U. 8. Infantry., Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. IS. A., 

Asst. Comni'r.for Louisiana. 
A true copy : 

L. Q. PARKER, 
Second Lieutenant First U. 8. Infantry., A. A. A. Gen.., 
Bureau of Refugees., Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



200 

Exhibit W\ 

Know all men by these presents, tliat we, Obadiaii C. French, Law- 
rence H. Clapp, Simon M. Preston, and William i^oonan, are held and 
tirmly bound unto the United States of America, in the sum of five 
thousand dollars lawful money of the United States, to be paid to the 
said United States, for which payment, well and truly to be made, we 
bind ourselves, and each of us, our and each of our heirs, executors, and 
administrators, for and in the whole, jointly and severally, firmly by 
these presents, sealed with our seals, dated the twenty-fifth day tjf 
September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and 

sixty-nine, and of the Independence of said States the . 

The condition of this obligation is such that whereas the above- 
bounden Obadiah C. French has been appointed a special agent and 
disbursing officer of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, and has accepted said appointment : Now if the said 
Obadiah C. French shall and doth at all times, henceforth and during 
his holding and remaining in said office, carefully discharge the duties 
thereof, and faithfully expend all public money and honestly account for 
the same, and for all public property which shall or may come into his 
hands on account of Subsistence and Quartermaster's Department, or of 
said iJureau, without fraud or delay, then the above obligation to be 
void : otherwise to remain in full force and virtue. 

OBADIAH C. FKENCH. 

LAWRENCE H. CLAPP. 

SIMON 31. PPvESTON. 

AVILLIAM NOONAN. 

Signed, sealed, and delivered in presence of — 
D. C. Kearns. 

We, the undersigned, hereby certify that the sureties on this bond are 
personally known to us, and they are entirely responsible for the amount 
named in this bond. 

C. H. KIPtKENDALL, • 

Assessor 1st Dis., 3Iiss, 
FRANCIS M. COPLEY, 
Capt. IQfh InfVy & Bvt. Lieut Col, U. *S'. A., 

ComWg Post of Natchez, Miss. 



County of Adams, 

State of Ilississij)}^!, to wit: 
On this twenty-fifth day of September, 1869, personally appeared be- 
fore me, a circuit clerk for the county aforesaid, Lawrence H. Clapp, a 
resident of Adams County, Miss., who made oath that he is worth the 
amount specified over and above all his debts and liabilities. 

LAWRENCE H. CLAPP. 
Sworn and subscribed before me — 

M. A. C. HUSSEY, Clerk. 



County of Adams, 

State of 2Iississi2)l)i, to icit : 

On this twenty-fifth day of September, 1869, personally appeared 
before me a circuit clerk for the county aforesaid, William Noouan and 



201 

Simon M. Preston, residents of Adams County, Miss., who made oath 
that they are worth the amount specified over and above their debts 
and liabilities. 

WILLIAI\I NOONAX 
SIMON M. PRESTON. 
Sworn and subscribttd before me — 

M. A. C. HUSSEY, Clerl: 

After the word "we," in first line the name of the officer appointed a 
special agent and disbursing ofi&cer, and the names of his sureties to 
this bond in full, will be inserted on these two lines. 

The responsibility of the sureties must be certified to by the United 
States attorney for the district in which thej- reside, or by some respect- 
able person well known to the Government. 

An internal-revenue stamp of one dollar is required on the bond and 
a ten-cent stamp to each certificate. 

The oath or affirmation must be made and subscribed before some 
judge, justice of the peace, or other officer authorized to administer 
oaths. 



Received, Washington, January 3, 1867, of A. K. Brown, solicitor, 
&c., four dollars for taking acknowledgment of deed from John A. 
Smith and wife (at their house) to the Freedmen's Bureau. 

JOHN F. CALLAN, 

$4.] Xofanj Puhlic. 



John A. Smith to Gen. G. W. Balloch et al. Received for record 
January 3, 1867. Fees $1.50, paid. 

R. M. HALL. 



George W. Balloch, trustee, to Tho3ias Evans,' Dr. 

January 26, 1867, for material and labor, plumbing, and gas- 
fitting at normal-school building, on Seventh street, near 
Boundary, as per verbal agreement .-. . $125 00 

Repairing hydrant, water-pipe, and water-closets 29 72 



154 72 
Received payment. 

THOMAS EVANS. 



The Putnam Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Ct. 
No. 147. Hartford, Decemher 24, 1808. 

Received of G. W. Balloch, trustee, Washington, D. C, thirty dollars, 
being the premium on three thousand dollars, insured under policy No. 
319, which is hereby continued in force for one year, to wit, from the 
twenty-fourth day of December, 1868, until the twenty-fourth day of 
December, 1869, at noon. 

L. WOODRUFF, President 
DANIEL BUCK, Secretary. 

Countersigned at Washington this 24th day of December, 1868. 

R. H. MARSH, Agent. 



202 



Washington, D. C, June 20, 1S69. 
Eeceived of George W. Ballocli five dollars for makiug deed, George 
W. Balloch, trustee, to Howard University. 

A. K. BEOWNE, Attorney, rfc. 



Washington, D. C, June 30, 1869. 
Eeceived of the treasurer of Howard Uuiversity six thousand dollars 
for the purchase of building and lot on Seventh street, near Boundary, 
recently occupied by the normal department. 

$,6000.] GEO. W. BALLOCH, 

Bvt. Brig. Gen. Volunteers, Trustee Retained Bounty Fund. 

I certify that the above is a true copy of voucher on file in this office. 

J. B. JOHNSOK, 
Secretary and Treasurer Howard University. 
Januaey 22, 1874. 



General George W. Balloch, trustee, to J. ^^^ Eumsey, Dr. 

January 31, 1871, for labor and material furnished, including paint- 
ing, in repairing normal-school building on Seventh street, near Bound- 
ary, as per verbal contract, 8925. 
Eeceived payment. 

$925.1 J. M. EUMSEY. 



Eeceived, December 21, 1870, of Dr. D. C. Patterson forty dollars and 
seventy-eight cents, for four cords of wood and one-fourth ton of coal, 
furnished to aged colored people at Lincoln buildings. 

XELSON ISDELL. 



Eeceived, this21stof December, 1871, from General George W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing oflicer Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, trustee of retained bounty fund, the sum of forty dollars and 
seventy-eight cents, for purchase of wood for certain aged freedmen 
under my charge on Captol Hill. 

D. C. PATTEESOX, 
Acting Assist. Surgeon, Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and A. L. 



Washington, February 27, 1874. 
I cannot find the other two insurance receipts. They were filed with 
the policies, and these are mislaid. One was for $32.50, and the other 
$31.25. 

G. W. BALLOCH. 



Extract from the records of meetings of trustees of Howard University, 
forty-fifth meeting, held April 22, 1869 : 

" Mr. Brewster moved that the subject of purchasing the property 
formerly used by normal school be referred to a committee of three, 



203 

with instructions to report the price for which it can be secured at the 
next meeting- of the board. Messrs. Bascom, Loomis and Wilson ap- 
pointed.'' 

Forty-sixth meeting, liekl May 21, 1S60 : 

"Mr. Bascom, chairman of committee on i)urchase of normal-school 
property, reported in favor of the purchase of the property for .$0,000. 
Moved by Mr. Brewster that the report be accepted, and the treasurer 
be requested to make the purchase. Passed." 

I certify tbat the above are true extracts. 

J. B. JOHNSON, 
Secretary and Treasurer Hoivard University. 

January 22, 1874. 



Befereuce is had to deed, John A. Smith and wife to George W. Bal- 
ioach (trustee of retained bounty fund of colored soldiers enlisted) — 
General Order No. 90, department of Virginia and North Carolina, 18G-4. 
Consideration named in deed, $12,000. Acknowledged in presence of 
John F. Callan, notary public, January 3, 1SG7. Date of deed 20th 
day of December, 186G. 

Eeference is also bad to deed of George W. Balloch (trustee of re- 
tain bounty fund of colored soldiers, &c.) to Howard University. Con- 
sideration named in deed, 80,000. 

Signed, sealed and delivered in 'presence of H. B. S ween v. Dated 
30th of June, 1809. 

[Stamp $3.] 

Note. — Difference of consideration * $0, 000 

Stamps on second deed 3 

Total 0, 003 

Memoranda above extracted from copies of deeds described and 
tested by careful reference. 



Exhibit X\ 

Washington, D. C, January 13, 1874. 
Gen. O. O. Howard : 

Sir : In reply to your letter of December 20, 1873, I have the honor 
to submit the following statement in relation to what was known as an 
" irregular or retained bounty-fund." The peculiar character of this 
fund is well set forth in the act of March 2, 1807. It was in no sense 
public funds of the United States, but was a portion of the State bounty 
paid by several of the Northern States, through their recruiting agents, 
to fill their quota by enlistment of colored soldiers, and was retained by 
General Butler by General Order No. 90, Department of Virginia and 
North Carolina, series of 1804. 

Amount on retaiued-bouuty rolls received from Virgiui.i was 883, 320 84 

Amount on similar rolls received from North Carolina was 29, 075 60 



Total amount on rolls received 112, 396 44 

In this connection it is proper to state, that this fund appears in the 
reports for 1805 and 1800 as $115,230.49. 



204 

Tbis was an error inadvertently made by tbe book-keeper in transerib- 
lug the account. It was corrected on the books as soon as discovered, 
but was not corrected in the reports, as it did not affect the final result. 

Auiouut paid to claimants $110,767 85 

Tiausferied to General Howard 1, 628 59 



11-2,3% 44 
Interest, premium and rent accounts. 

In order to fully understand this account it Avill be necessary to state 
that previous to the passage of the act of March 2, 18G7, regulatiug the 
investment of this fuud, viz, on the 21st of December, 18G6, there was 
purchased from it a building and lot of land on Seventh street, (near 
Boundary,) in Washington, for a normal school for refugees and freed- 
men, at a cost of 812,000, and this property was afterward sold to 
Howard University for 86,000 on condition that it should be used in con- 
nection with their hospital as an "asylum for the idiotic and mild 
lunatics." 

Premium account. 

Under act of Congress of March 2d, 18G7, 830,000 of bonds of the 
United States, known as tive-twenties, were purchased and sold as ibl- 
lows : 

1867. 
June 1. Purchased $30,000 in bonds at G^ $1, 950 00 

1868. 
July 1. Sold $5,000 in bonds at 11 $550 00 

1869. 

January 1. Sold $25,000 in bonds at 10| 2, 768 75 

3,318 75 

Gain in premiums 1, 3G8 75 

Interest account. 

1H67. 
November 1. Keceived six mouths" interest on $30,000 gold at 36 $1, 224 00 

1868. 

May 1. Received six months' interest on $30,000 gold at 38 1,242 00 

November 1. Keceived six months' interest on $25,000 gold at 32 990 00 

Total interest received 3, 456 00 

Bent account. 

1867. 

December 31. Eeceived for one year's rent of normal school building . $1, 200 00 

1868. 

April 1. Received for one quarter's rent of normal school building 300 00 

July 1. Received for one quarter's rent of normal school building 300 00 

October 1. Received for one quarter's rent of normal school building 300 00 

December 1. Eeceived for one quarter's rent of normal school building . .. 300 00 

Total rent received 2, 400 00 

EECAPITULATION. 

Received from gain in premium $1, 368 75 

Received from interest 3, 456 00 

Received from rent 2, 400 00 

Total 7,224 75 



;o 



3 



Payments. 

lusurauce ou uoruial-school buildiug, (three years) S93 75 

Makiug deed 5 00 

Acknowledgiug aud recording deed, stamps, &c 5 50 

Eepairs ou building, (carpenter's work^ , 9"25 00 

Repairs ou buildiug, (plumbiug aud gas-fitting) 154 72 

Retaiued bounty fuud ior difference between price paid and received for 

buildiug 6,000 00 

Balance expended in wood for distribution to destitute freetliuen 40 78 

Total 7,224 75 

GEORGE W. B ALLOC H, 
Late Chief Dhbnrs'ing Officer ., Bureau B.. F. and A. L. 

District of Colu3ibia, .s-s- ; 

Personally appeared before me. a notary public iu aud for the District 
aforesaid. George W. Balloch, who. being duly sworn, states that, to the 
best of his knowledge and belief, the foregoing account is a true and cor- 
rect statement of the " irregular or retained bounty-fund,'' referred to in 
the act of Congress, approved March 2, 1807. 

^ GEORGE W. BALLOCn, 

Late Chief Disbursing Officer, Bureau ii'., F. and A. L. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this nineteenth dav of January, A. 
D. 1874. 

JOHN H. COOK, 

Notary Public . 



Exhibit Y\ 

Fort Gibso>'. Cherokee Xatiox, 

February o, 1873. 
General Tho3ias M. Vincent, 
Assistant Adjutant- General U. S. A., in charge of Bureau ILjF.andA.L.: 

General : 1 have the honor to most respectfidly submit herewith for 
your consideration a letter from the Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau which explains itself. I made application to him for my bounty; 
he tells me that it has been paid. I am prepared to prove that it has 
never been paid to me, as I was at Fort Pike, Louisiana, serving with 
my company, at the time said payment should have been made. I 
would therefore respectfully request that you do all in your power to 
collect the same, as I have served my country to the best of my ability 
and do not care to be defrauded out of my dues. Anything you can do 
for me I will always appreciate it as a great favor. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

BEXJAMiy OLIVIA, 
Late Sergeant Eighty-fourth United States C<dored Troops, 

Xoa: Sergeant Company J, Twenty-fifth Lnfantry. 

Headquarters Fort Gibson, Indian Territory, 

February 4, 1873. 
The statement of Sergeant Olivia, as to his whereabouts in 18G7, is 
correct. He was not to my personal knowledge in Xew Orleans at the 
time this payment should have been made. That he has beeu defrauded 
out of his bounty there can be no doubt. 

GAIXES LATTSOX, 
Captain Ticenty-fifth Infantry, Commanding Post and Company. 



2o6 

Exhibit Z^. 

War Depaetme^mt, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Claim Division, Washington, I>. C, January 10, 1871. 
Sir : In auswer to your letters dated, respectively, December 15, 1870, 
respecting" your claim fof bounty, &c., as late sergeant of Company I, 
Eighty-fourth United States Colored Troops, I am directed by the Com- 
missioner to inform you that the records of this Bureau show your claim 
to have been settled by Second Auditor's certificate No. 301861 for 
$258.00, and the amount (less $10.25 fees paid your attorney) paid to 
you August 26, 1867, by Lieuteuaut St. Clair Mandeville, then agent of 
this Bureau at New Orleans, La. 

As it appears by your letter that you are already aware of the official 
misconduct of Mr. Mandeville, (now deceased,) it is regarded necessary 
only to add that suit has been entered against his bondsmen for the re- 
covery of the amount of his deficit, and that until the same shall have 
been terminated, no action will be taken by this Bureau on any claims* 
shown by the records to have been paid by him. 
Very respectfully, &c., ♦ 

WILLIAM P. DKEW, 
Agent Bureau E., F. and A. L., Chief of Claim Division. 
Mr. Benjamin Olivia, (colored,) 

Sgt. Co. I, Tu-enty-Jjfth U. S. Infty, Fort Duncan, Texas. 



Exhibit A'*. 

War Department, 
Ad.jutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, March 10, 1873. 

The Adjutant-General of the Army, 

Washington, D. C. : 

General : I have the honor to report that an application, dated the 
5th ultimo, from Benjamin Olivia, late Company I, Fifty-fourth United 
States Colored Troops, and now a sergeant Twenty-fifth United States 
Infantry, for his pay and bounty, settled by Treasury certificate No. 
304861, has pointed to the fact that St. Clair Mandeville, (now de- 
ceased,) late agent of the Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands at New Orleans, La., was a defaulter in a sum exceeding'. 
18,500. 

It appears from the records of said Bureau, (letters sent.) that im- 
mediately after the appointment of Mandeville he was furnished with 
complete lists of all bounties in Louisiana, ready for ])ayment, giving 
the name of the claimant, the amount due, the company and regiment 
to which he belonged, and his last-known post office address. These 
lists were continued as fast as claims wei'e settled, and until he died. 

As soon as Mandeville found the claimants he reported the fact to the 
chief disbursing officer, who prepared and forwarded vouchers for their 
signature, and when received back, signed, a check was drawn, payable 
to the order of Mandeville for the amount of said receipted vouchers,, 
and sent to him. Tbe total amount so sent is stated to be $91,852.31. 
At the time of the death of Mandeville the sum of $9,571.05 was fouml 
in his safe. A subsequent investigation revealed the fact that the total 



207 

amonut due soldiers wLo bad signed voucliers and had not been paid 
was §18,074.34. 

If tbe fignres as above given are correct, Lieutenant Mandeville's 
deficit was $8,503.29. 

It furtber appears from tbe records of tbe late Bureau tbat suit was 
commenced in tbe courts of Louisiana against tbe sureties of Mr. Man- 
deville. Tbe result of tbat suit is not known to tbis Ofitice, and no 
money bas been received from tbe ofiicers of tbe late Bureau to pay tbe 
claims of tbe soldiers wbo, as above stated, bave not been jyaid^ 
altbougb tbe claimants bave signed vouchers, wbicb vouchers have been 
filed in tbe Treasury Department, with tbe accounts of the chief dis- 
bursing ofScer, (General G. W. Balloch,) as paid, thus claiming credits 
for payments not made. 

The case is similar to tbat of O. C. French, now with tbe Department 
of Justice. 

It is respectfully suggested tbat tbe matter be placed before tbe Sec- 
retary of War, with request that be call upon the late Commissioner for 
a full report, said report to embrace a list of claimants whose money 
was appropriated by Mr. Mandeville, together with those wbo have 
been paid from tbe funds found in tbe safe of tbe agent. 

It is proper to add that no papers tending to show tbe details of tbis 
matter were turned over with the records, nor was it intimated that such 
a state of affairs existed. 

Tbe subject was referred to in a letter from the late Commissioner to 
Hon. W. B. Kellogg, United States Senator, dated February 18, 1870. 
He will recall the subject through tbat letter, now with tbe records of 
this Office. 

Very respectfully, general, vour obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCEIn^T, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 

[First iiidorsemeut.] 

Kespectfully submitted to the Secretary of War. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit B^ 

War DErARTMEiN'T, 

Washington City^ March 10, 1873. 
General O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner Biirean R., F. lb A. L., Washi)igton, B. C. : 

Ge]\'ERAL : From a report received through the Adjutant-General, I 
bave respectfully to inform you tbat an application, dated tbe 5th ulti- 
mo, from Benjamin Olivia, late Company I, Fifty-fourth United States 
Colored Troops, and now sergeant Twenty-fifth United States Infantry, 
for his pay and bounty, settled by Treasury certificate No. 304801, has 
pointed to tbe fact tliat St. Clair Mandeville, (now deceased,) late 
agent of tbe Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands at 
New Orleans, La., was a defaulter in a sum exceeding $8,500. 



208 

It appears from the records of said Bureau (letters seut) that imme- 
diately alter the appoiutmeutof 3Iaudeville lie was furuished with com- 
plete lists of all bounties in Louisiana ready for payment, giving the 
name of the claimant, the amount due, the company and regiment to 
which he belonged, and his last-known post-office address. These lists 
were continued as fast as claims were settled, and until he died. 

As soon as Mandeville found the claimants he reported the fact to the 
chief disbursing ofticer, who prepared and forwarded vouchers for their 
signature, and when received back, sig-ned. a check was drawn, payable 
to the order of Mandeville, for the amount of said receipted vouchers, 
and sent to him. The total amount so sent is stated to be 894,852.21. 
At the time of the death of Mandeville the sum of $9,.571.6o was found 
in his safe. A subsequent investigation revealed the fact that the total 
amount due soldiers Avho had signed vouchers and had not been paid 
was 818,074.34:. 

If the figures as above given are correct. Lieutenant ]\Landeville's de- 
ficit was S'8,.j03.29. 

It further ai)pears, from the records of the late Bureau, that suit was 
commenced in the courts of Louisiana against the sureties of 3Ir. Man- 
deville. The result of that suit does not appear from the records of the 
late Bureau, and no money has been received from the officers of the 
late Bureau to i)ay the claims of the soldiers who, as above stated, have 
not l)eeu paid, although the claimants have signed vouchers, which 
vouchers have been tiled in the Treasury Department, with the accounts 
of the chief disbursing officer, (General G. W, Balloch.) as paid, thus 
claiming credit for payments not made. 

I have, therefore, to request that you will, in regard to the matter, 
render a full report: said report to embrace a list of claimants whose 
money was appropriated by Mr. Mandeville, together with those who 
have been paid from the funds found in the safe of the agent. 

It is proper to add that no papers tending to show the details of this 
matter were turned over with the records, nor was it intimated that 
such a state of affairs existed. 

The subject was referred to in a letter from you to Hon. W. P. Kellogg, 
L'nited States Senator, dated February 18, 1870. You will recall the 
subject through that letter, now with the records of the Adjutant-Gene- 
ral's Office. 

Verv respectful! V. vour obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKXAP, 

Secretary of War. 



Exhibit C^. 

Explanatory note relative to Statements A, B, C, D, and E, attached 
to letter of Assistant Adjutant-General Thomas M. Vincent, dated Sep- 
tember 23, 1873: 

For Statement A, see page 13, Exhibit B. (Disbursements made by 
late Bureau Befugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, from January 
1 to July 31, 1871, as stated in accounts rendered by the disbursing offi- 
cer to the Treasury Department.) Embraces iieriod from March 24, 
1871, to July 31, 1871. From latter date until June 30, 1872, the dis- 
bursements, as shown by vouchers and as stated on accounts-current, 
agree. Following the statement is the abstract of vouchers, prepared 
from the vouchers themselves. The said abstract shows the date of 



209 

payineut as claimed, the number of the voucher, to whom paid, on what 
account, amount, and date of actual payment, (as shown by the check 
drawn in payment thereof,) and, after July 1. 1871, tbe appropriation 
against which the voucher paid was chargeable. 

For Statement B, see page 1-i, Exhibit B. 

For Statement C, see page 14, Exhibit B. (Analysis of disburse- 
ments from appropriation for support of Bureau Refugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872. made 
from vouchers as filed in the Treasury Department.) Abstract of vouch- 
ers for expenses incurred prior to July, 1871, paid from appropriation 
for the year ending June 30, 1872, follows said statement. The proper 
payments have not been abstracted, but reference is made to abstract 
following Statement A, from voucher 1, July 1, 1871, for 853.25, to 
voucher 4, June 29, 1872, for 817.50, the appropriation to which charge- 
able being noted thereon. 

Statement D, page 11. Exhibit B, (receipts of the late Bureau Refu- 
gees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, from July 1, 1871. to June 30, 
1872,) is copied from records of late Bureau cash-book, and from accounts 
of disbursing officers as rendered to the Treasury. The statement of 
receipts (D'^) is a detailed statement of the items which go to make up 
Statement D, page 11, Exhibit B. 

Statement E, page 15, Exhibit B. (Receipts in the year ending June 
30, 1872, that might properly be used to defray expenses incurred prior 
to June 30, 187L) The detailed statement (E^) explains itself. 

[These statements (tables) A, B, C, D, and E form part of this Ex- 
hibit C®, but are not reprinted because already printed in Exhibit B.] 

11 H E 



2IO 















: r: "' »^ £* iH Lt '^ — ^ -i ;< f^ -v " o 



' =: = ^ - 



■ — — — 3: J r X 



5 — _' X 






_^ .P~-£x._;^iS 



.a — • 
c t-" 



C^- 



: =3 



G- 






2 = ^ 



S £ — ^— - 



< r r^~ '—> > 'Z. .-'■r~ - >, x r 1 - i; r = 5 5' 5 ? i ^ _■ r- "" •= ^5? 









_ ^ i ^ i 1 1 = r ^ i I is 



r » 

-- j^ r w s u :3 



c © c o 



■S ■> -5 ~ ■> ■> -^ 'p -I "> 



X X I X ^ ^1 = I ^ I ^ gj 



: ? F "= -i ^ -r -i = F -r F F F F = ~ F - .'' ? 










r=c~ 



< C ^ x -; :2 ^ X ::; -/: ^ i s: 5 :5 < ~ ;i 



JO -OK I 



; ■?• >.-; -^ r- X r-. = — c< n ■>»• « -^ i~ X. c. c — ' CI « •J' L- -i t~ X C-. = — i» rr: -s' > - 
T- -^ -H r-i r-11-. rH r- 1-1 ci J» n II s» n :i « i« u rs f^ n n r: r: c 



•j; (~ X 3> 



21 I 



5t 2 00 



■ O'^^'^^^^'^'^^'^'^.^^^ i-'/^ '^ ■*- ^ ^ O 



= ccc>icc = ecc>>ccc>>c= >>>»>i 



o t- L- — ■ — ■ 












— X — f^ : 



'* — — c^ X I 



















: f~ • 

X 






^ ^-.""^ . 



■s g 



?-- i 



• ' ■ • X o 
QC , X ~ _' 



-■_--x4 -xSf =-55 






X — _ i X 

^_ "u ^ "^ - 





u 5. i £ I ■> - .- £ z 5 " ^-~ i X ;= 



_ -z 










t~ • = X 

X • ^ — 
X — I ; 3 . 

^8 : s" 



^?- I 

= -V o 

^■5 S ■= 



•^ C = r < -__ 









.-. "^ 3^ - J J ^ 3 



E-5 



^21 illi:^- il^lP il 



■ s s >■- ? ^ 









£5^ 



_;■=. :=^ 



— 3iS.= s-5-- ". ;rjs:r jt3-=~ i I c- 






— — -» n tr o tc j^-x r: o — Tj r: 



■ X ^ — -^ 



:£ '.c ^ 5c :o » !:c cc 5c ict^t^^*^^£^f^^-c^t^^■xxxxxxxxxxciO 



212 



00 



OO O) 



>> o d >i X c o o c" o >> d d >> o c d >» d >-, >i o c c d o d d d c d d d d d d 



a c8 



c8 



f a 



c»ooojooooc:ooo^ooooooooooo3~o*-cooc^t^or^oc:3t^a:^*oo 

CJGDL'^OrtlCt^iriOlOOX'^lCirrOOI^tCCDOOir^CllCtOO^'^OOCOCOO'OOOCOOODOf-'O 
€^ rHt^^t^ C/CO^"'r — C*C'w'-0 f^ ICTii^ t^-^r-t inTJ-C-i — O — OOt^CrjlfSCt— l^ 



• J3cO - '- _ — 

o ^ g 
S-g"pcc-o"5^^ 



00 



! = :^P 



r~ ce' 



o o^>^ § ^ S- g - 

■a 






a- S- 

S" S 'S 

5 S _r^ -H oj o =» 
Isio-So|g22 

>,gsS-^-arS^- 



d 00 



00 n 



I«b2 ^ir" 



a Q » .3 t. «" g - ._-j^ 



fc. S-2 = ' 



- C? S - t~ " = " 

= 55 -I^^SbSb 

g-oa??3Pb_-S"'2 
a;a«>.c82:*"2oa 

~ O o Q 



■= o e ? >,"5 5 — 



;0^ 



d -S o^ t~~S - 
•S ^-.S 2 -.fe ^^-S 

2 2 o = ^ u = 

JJ c 



a » t. n-c 



5 2 = -^ !r 






H>,OQg=>-.§sab, ^ 

r ? S - r=, d-5 S -- S « « ^- J- .^ g ^ dl 5 

•^l g = a toS^s c i^ >p?;>55 .rs sal 

. I '^'o M~ t. »!, 5 ■^ " N -5 "^ -= 1. = -'^ t. 2 

J3 zj * :c ^^ 0; — ^-' — '"ti a* 5 fl7 5 ij'fL ^"^ 0) — 

gSJ^l30a^Ot-'<i;^~Za-S2"a-g 
= T3^...S,,<i.a^ce*^-g-^>^ic3a^^ 

Sasajga^-^:;^. ^zj^-SS-^ 

- £ S-2--a*^sS>cD'^i--(c5-2 



00l-5_- 

F^'". o" 



s S a 
- a 5 ce_ 

a 2 a^i; 

jj a a o 3c 

H, -: K, - "l- 

r ° — -' c» £ 



S &>§§§"" 

"a ^iai 

a g'-i * " 



~ a "2 "^ =^ OS 



>-.; 



o = a .S <s 3 
•" I. (S 5 a -- 

■9 -^ a "S -g, o 




HO0<i 



•jaqDnoA 
JO -OK 






21 



< — — — _ ^ t, j^ 

• J~ f- t~ i^ i^ 0000 

) CD OU X) 00 00 .— I r-H 

J" tt'-j" t-^ 00 oTr-l r- 

■> •>■>> >, >)....>-.>>>. 

;C0CCCCCC0C0000-;t:0OCC0CCCC000CCCC00!-00O0OOOO';000O^'-'- 

> i, zi o o O (H 0) 



owootooooiriooi'^oooooooooooooooo~onc:oooic:^ooooooootooooOTt<o 
o<X5rooco — oocjLOoi-'^ooor^OwC^oomooooooooc^cooiociaj^ooomooocot^ooooojw' 

^ ^ ^1 r-t Ci r-l r-l 



»-*: o ^ 'tr r^ lo o i^ 




§-5-='§Sgt-i555^-ob|''2 
•-5 >,>^ .^'2 1^ S S c o - •' C- s = " 

.; .2 s « > ^ ' = -j^Ta J = ^ S ^.£ 
" -^ >> '^ o i^ ii ^^ ■- .5 S! ^ S - aT • 

c.2.2c>S = aa3s-g.2»,^>cea-Sc 
Si'i?^ ^3> tasMMD M— =? 3 ffl S.2.m£ it 



> 3 2 > -^ rS -^ > t^ > > 



.- - = ■- -J « 



5-5 s::. 






;Oa;^'3;Oa)^oa)o-0(i;t.o35^0T>Saa3iJSa>03jSa3cJoa3 






03 s 

— > 



a a i>,r:^ 

OJ O o ,- . 



' >>M 









«a ; 

'^ . S o a; ^- 

s : g>^' g i t< 
t- * ^ ^=^ „ 



i" '-a . i-»r- S-< '-a 



; >:'-^ B 



^il 



o 

^ o - - 



ll^c 



■ :^ a £ 3. 



^ a ? S XI 



a a ►"te-;;: =^ 



■ a a '^ lae 



■So s a M — -^ 



^3 ;!<?' 









i^^l 



; fc S ^ S 5 c o 
I h-i >^ S 5 1^ CO H 



^K sat; ad 

: < W C X 55 02 






214 



t- t^ r* t- t* 

00 0000 00 00 



iQoo § ga 



• Goaa 



I— t-J 1-1 CJ C) I! d 0< 

>i>> >). . . .>>>>>>. >1>^. . . 

glQoaoqagQqaoggSoggQao 



OOOOCJO^CC^OCDOOOOOCCO^OOOitOCDTrCOOaUOOOCJ^OOOTCO^ 



0003>i^f^CJOOOO 



■-rrmOir-ai'-l U^OrnOOr-OO Cit- CJCCCJt-— 'OOOOCI — »— t- 

??tC(Nt-rt-» H O i-l-H i-H r-( i-lrHr-^nOJINCO'S' 



o o o o 
moo 



■jaqanoA 

JO -on: 



-^ O — ( 

*^ t— o 

oo CO V • 

r-H rH >i . 

r-* — ' 2 00 
«o s ii 

C'^ ."-^ 

a: ^►1^5 

a" St" 

^ O Sl-5 



-§4 



a P o _- j^q5 O = 



■< (^ . 



" a -to „ 
a ^ 00 oo 

a o s b 
a ■•^ a c8 



9"& 

cs ^ oo 
O c8 -T 






"c-5 — _; 

1^ :: o — C! 



- ^p! 

?; _j M a; 2 

r*^oD ^ a - 






t. 1-5 >j 



a a 



__^ o u CO r"'co _- o 5 Q >> 9 

t- — Q a a _-" li S ^ s "^ 
•5b2^§-"b>>-=>.a2 

^„-^„„ :>.-■ = 



^ torn -"^-.2*3 5*;° 



,paoo=eaja-:^Sg 



f, « « CS 00 



1 2 C "-a 



5 >> r: S a. ,2; c3 S o. r,. « Sr* — . :^ 



r c3 _ « Q 2 J- a a . - r r^^ .'3 i> - oT 5 - i i: 
S~~rto---3Jae!'0'«a3 -.2oSa3=:?*aS 

-c «S o § 



jG'J'g.2 



o a bee " 



t: .M =* ' 



O 



o g « >>~ ';?~ocoa_5i'a^ 






' o 



CB . 53 

300 a 



"■- >- fci CO fci 



•T ^ ^j GO 

[2 ^U g ii _ CC 



logo 

■"CO '" C'bo3 2 S 

^ ^ fc- a -O ^ aj r^^ 

r;^aX)fct( .S" 
jaaai'. •£ - 
(ucecot,3oax:a 

* = o-2sg-^fe § 

£ ID +^ ^ ^ b^t-l 



iT a' 



rtgb«.SE=g5 




> I 



;2S 



= Q = S S -a 



,2 o 



^£ 



eta 3 






3.2-5 
X I 

O i-i H M CQ M 



5a^ 



a pW 






^ — 5 a 

3 E; a<: 



o f4J 






«^4 i : :fa<^i-; ijKcSoeud^^H 



•a § . 



o a 






^f 5 



to r- 00 ci o "^ ci : - , . _ . 

ooooooQoaio>oiajOiai35ai:nai 



-^ir:^r^QOOiO'-^^'»M'<riO':c£^oooiOf-HOico'^ic>cDt^Qocio — <■ 

~ ' ~ ~ ^ "OOOOOOOO^O— • — — -^ — ' — .— — I — ^— 'C^C-^C-, _ _ . 

Gi 7t Qi Qt Qi Qi 17* (2^ a Qt Oi (>t a Qt Oi Qi Oi Ci Ql Oi <7i Ci Qi Oi Ci (^ Ct Oi 



* C< 7> (?> CN CJ 7* 



215 



OOOOOOOCOCOOOjfCCO 



noooocoo coooooootjTo 



t-"ooooooo 



s s 



OOlOOOlCOODOOOCOOOOOOfOOOOLO^OCOO CO 
010-^OIOC*0(^(000:OOOOOO^OOOI^OC*CO'0 o»o 



O OOOt-— 'OOOC^OOOOOOOOOOOOL-^ 
OtOOO^t^-^lOOr-OOOOOOOlt^OOOOO 

c*tai oc»oaiOoi-ooc^o^»ooc»i^c»oo-^(7»ooO'*i'0 
cz Oi r^o m o^ou-H !r:oo (7jiooco^oo:ocJto 



J2 9R _(' * 00 

& ^00 C - 



-■S >>- 2 



C 2 a Z^ 



00 _, 

ooE& ^ r^Qo' 



222 >> • 

CD* 00 C3 V^ 
<J>C) 3 2 

£;> >.^ no" 

•^5 . 



frSt 



>> i =^od" b : 



^ - - fe " 

ffi =9 a boo- 3 

C3CT 2 
Or_ ./^*^+^ ^&^ 3^ r^^ ^ . t?^ ™ 



00 



t^ 00 



OOIT* _, j_ 

2 <?» g Coo ''^ 



? ^^ t. 00 n 



f^vo a 



5CU-- 



^ 00 ' 



? o 3 r^ 






■ ooajS^oip'~'>,k^t.5^j;'rbrfS3C'F1 

^ g - • C(~ C'- '^ ?= 5 ^ g ^ 5 „' s o 1^ g cB 3 (i^ 
S5b^3-ch-o-?£>>i;fMi^St^-i -1^ -° -- 



cfl ■:;^ O 3 "J h ^, 

■- Bi( _, ^ 2 ^-^ 
"So >..|J - 5 o 

o 3 ;: 
_< t. .^'^ 

!>,2ri' b-O 



p. b? 



b>. 



•^5 
S5 b- 5 2 



^•? >>^ fe ■ 

>, oj t ;; s _, 

S ^ S ^^ 00 

^0)03^ g a^*ifr(0O 



S -^^ u . 



r** r? :: ^ i? -^ £ 



- at^ t: o = a 



^Q^;-: 



2§espr^b 
b^-s^-i^g 

S o2g o 

r ^ « "^ 3 O -f~ 

fa ^ hfa l>..5 ^ ^ 2 

■a t. 5 o fe « -' b_- 

^■2 r^ b^ ^ ^ § s 

grS-^ Sfa^ 



:^' 



"« 



iK sofa tI: « :«CS 

raoJgJ 



a -g r -fa X t; 9 >.M >>^-_-^ iS'ri'SJSOMg^J 




> ■> o "s ■g '>^ ° '> i^ S 5 ■ 



, ic S p. "3 



•^ -^ 5 'S ■" s _ ~ -r -r -r -,- _ -r; 'r -r -M ■;; -r d — *- 'S a' 'c a =2 5 -^ 'S 5 "S! iS 'S S :2 'S := 'S iS S f 'S " 
Cu'Si;aaaj^r£;£;a<E?;Sr;ag;?5on£;3^33"a£'5;C'S£l»!ii'^£'0-„'K^>'C!- 
a;_^_OaiJiij^3dSaja>'^J-ijajS%a3SJ-3a^aj,^aj^^^p^a'p^pa)^"j:2^2iaj^2?P^'^^^ 






ajtfPuanpSpSCMSitBi/jwcSfc'XaC'twKaiiBtHfecij/iHaDE-i (liKwCHaT'DHC/:. OSSajSccCi<P,<iy:a3t»dH!»ajp;fa7: 






C8 

!r ■sS a 
a ,^ b a 

O ^ 0) c 



albbal' 



d!2~ 
. u — 

lis 



3 o -^ 



53(5^ 



c- S o i 
a taoQ. 

US'** : 



«r-C5 2 



ffi 5 E-i fa - 









o 



l^J-2 



ce s<! 












o 






2l6 



t^OOOCOOOOOaro"OCCOCCOOOCOOOOO OiOCOCO^OOCOO^ 



oooor^ooo-^oirsc^t^oioioaDOinoDOOOoocoooooOwOooocooT 



I lO O) •^ 00 £^ niTj 



10(NOtO = C<r-i Xf-Oi 



t^ OO 






.O 00 



-^ 00 00 






t-5.= oo" 
00 — TJoj 



fc s fa ^ o >>■§ 2 

° £ o ffi ^ S fa . 

*oa'~'r'fa>>s-'>-., 

■S xf gfa'l gfa<^-p^. 
feSfai^S^ ,S=sgo 

.-3 rli.l^'fa ;. 
5 o n fa g ?B rS i; i^ t?'~ "C * 

= ^.ss-3s5o-ES-??rg3?5"2g-'5 

tu s r, "=> <^ --•* 



^" 2 oo"qo"_; <^' 2 S =8 
2 2£:.h2?3s5>.^ 



' •-» "^ ?:; 00- >> 2 5 -• ~ -_ 

r" - ^.00 c^ js j; ? c» ^ a 



Csfa 






(lie » 
u bp ^ O o 

'Fl'E a"H'^ 
o oi i> a> 3> 






>^Q0- 

5"'_; 



00 
-" — ' 00 00 

t- r^ TJ — I 

orj GO . - — 
^ — >-.;» (^ 

. > i. (M 00 

GO TO Cfl ^ r- 

'^' '^' g L--QO- 

S 3 "' " 



;=(^ 



T-- 00 

- ^ 



be o 



ce • ^ 

3 — i- 
C-f. X . 

-o '^' — 



t05 ii M 



oi o o OS ; 



fa s c 

•S -g *^ fa 2 _; £;.<^' 

3 >>?; ^ fa "" £ "S t- « ?■•— o» 
5fe2°2b-(^-Si£S 

StHf^b^-Ss^csofa C5 
—» :s-5'-fao^^'*^e* 

S S C C ."S * 3 -^ •£ d •« 
•- -' ^ "t -i >v* 5- ►., j^- J a 
5 >>-3 fa fa « .-•= r « >>>' 3j 

^2„>,t:5Sa = 3os 
fe - - ^_ W y,^_ g H ■-», § -K ^- 
' >,fa >;-| 5| = H= S X I'-S 
! 3-5^ ^ .2 = '^ g = S Eh -E 3 ^ 

■ a -•■® o o ®,5 5 qi; 3-^ Sj 

jjJgg'iS|S«gS_§'5,S 
J j; ■» gJM-S g g:'j, iCj2 >,3 5 

' -*^ ^ '^ '^ 'S 'S 'S *^ — -2 •— :;; 3 

•aiP-MKiKOQ-jrfiSfaa-KSH 



cs g-3 g 



fa^ 



la a 



oa S ■ 

fa cS • 

S3: 



g|s| 



_2^^ 3 



i! o S. -/I "3 "^ . . *^. 



" = •- 5 ;? 1 1" > s . 






au^^.2<^" S-SB'^M"1-5 5^fa-S.fa'2|MO 5o' 



<ih?CQfafaiai-!«OPUJc-ita;?: ' "' ' " - ' - ' 



B 5i? 
S a a 

HsPSh^kJaioofaOaji-slSiBiJaj 



i-s £ a 

>. o -^ o 



•jaqawoA 
JO -ok; 






21/ 



•» .irato 

COCOOO'-'O — ■-' 



^P. 






— CT o o o o o 



10 % 



(^< o d d =" » S 



JOC. OlOCi-^OCOr^tCOfMOOOOOOOCOCOO O OOOOC10 400 OODCOOtOO lOOO OtOOO 



m — »o j< CO - 



O O O O ■— t^ (7^ O 



O — ^ O Ol o 



— 00 C O O ?3 '- O C' ^ — ' O C-? t^ 
lO IC »o C^ J* o ~ .- 



r- f— ^ 



re 



- c» 



® Sec 
[i< r; — ' 

c .Sx' 

o^ >. 
t~ o - 






2 o 1;-^ >>i. be ■ ?g c i; 2 = S-^r'^co-. 



>^aD 



spS-, 



?oo Cod 3 § (^ 

! -~ CS C;j 4) , 00 

t o i^ « ^ I - -2 -g 

2£ = ?°ibg-s 
c t! b^ b ° I ° = 

_ S s o S-' 



: C-- -c ' 



! ■? rT * ~ C8 2:. 



h^l 




^ « g g •= - a .i =.- ^ ^ ^ ^ - ^ ^ ^ ^ 



£ "00 

2. 2 r 



r'' "to" 
1-1" 

2.S.-S 



-^ii-i 



S 2 i So 5 



,^W >< 



■^■^•2 
3^ « 




^ ^ d ^ -X q 

3 = 'H J= .2 => 

S g O > K a 

OJ !J ]i Oi 3J 5 

i S 5 2 I -^- 

C O C O o ^ 

o -a o o c _:. 
^^^^J3 o 
<y C « O o Q 
(O O !» » ai J 
t- « t- ^ t- t» 

O " ^ .^ ,C M 

:o n 00 » '^ =* 

S O cS K « T 

ill lit' 



r-g;5 

bcto _ 

n '» P 
'^ _j 
W n ^ 

~ d ?* 

>-.x- 

'3 - a 









o . 



> a 
Z tiJ 



^ S 2 

111 

'-^ I' „ 

(> S s^ 



-£gg 



>& r^^. 



a a - 

i< OJ o 

> « to 

o .S_a; 

'go 



1 a > 



a o 
a te .3 3" 

' a 1-2 ^. 

2 5 a 3 3 
= § S "S J 



• * a - 
l^iS jd 

aO ^J^ 
33zl^" 

|a-:Q 



t» 



o Ml £ o 



H 



.g a o _ 
i:?'ai,sag_3 
■- X3 J' > a a o 

» CD t->-lii-"z«!< ^Sgn 



^5^ 



_ w _ ,»; p 
So S — ' &* 



ffl ^ 



"x ei ";; -c 5 ^t'^ 
5 'E'Et^ -o .^^ar-S"^ ; .ojaJtB .^- . 



S "3 



: = ^ 



►^ = t: a 



■a Tj 
"J ta 
■<! o 



>a- 



i pin' d H 



2P5 ^r 



O— 'C^CQ-TfiO^Di-^OC'OiO— •^JC0TrO''i;f-0DC5O— t(NC 



CJOJCM!:?J'?fC>(?JCI^ITJr?C0r^C0COCOC0C0COC0-^ 



corococ^rococcroc^cococcr^cocccoc^r^r: 



: c^ CO r^ cc CO 



tC t^ CO a> O — C'» CO -rf* I 
■rr-^-rrrriiOiO*." ~ 
CO CO CO C^ CO CO c 






lo.:^ 



o — ^ c* M Tj< in cc 



COCOCOCOCOCO COCOW CO CO 00 CO 



2l8 



O O O O O : 



■ lO o = o « 



oininoooinootcoiooco 
— -H t- ^- 1-1 COCO'S" to 



oiooooocoiracoocoooooooooooooot~ 
oot-aDintcto^coooo«oinooooootoooiraoo(M 



•jaqDnoA 
JO -OK 



.^ 






a CO 
S n CO a ca 

g !. CO t. 5 






p; _— 5 CO S 

Scoj: S-a ° 
_ o =S o -^ 

— "•? £: 1-5 !; r-- 

^ rS ^ o 



° » o CD S ~-_:S a) „- „ ^ 

-»i -^ .« t^ ^^ ** - ^ X "S * O" 

eJeO.ffl.SrsrsCjjj^csS'O 

C3 O* J O* CC 'q^'cu ' 

<u3jaja)ajC>o„^gQQDgj 
.^ .is .i5 ™ .ii DO C Q .-. .X 



® h * ^ 5 ja 



g 

5 S I JH 



O !* X °-«<Ji= X 



:WBgi&; 



. OP 



r-fco^o^cjco-s-ocot^oooi 
cococococococococococococo 



■ CO ^ 

-'"r^t ji.^ n^ — 00 



CO r; 22 t- "^ 

jg .- CO r- ^ „ 

SCO u" o 

■= " J5 - '^ 

-►^ ca O * J3 a! 



t- _J i^ 

00^ 'JO 



t- o ^ o ^ c 

S5 



•^"^.g h?"-a 

o 00 ^ 33 r a S s 

•^ '-' o Si X t. ^51 

. ^- .S« x^ „-^ 

bid|.iiia^S(2g'x^ 

E^ "^ '-' r-rS ^ , be ^ "x g 

■Oco"-s . Tlts!®^"-^ - 



^^. =aS"S 



J3 ce -Hro - 
"S Ja4a-- 
1- - 00 






cS-' >- 



=e '-5 3 :a .2 Ji: .a 

=■ 2 i 'S c. s->J 1^ S -g i > 



,'> X ii"^ ''' ~ 

o a^-2'.-a 

a a X « _2 g 

w ffi "5 ^ S ^ 

a a S a j.i< 

0) a; ►^ a> X ^ 

bo bo rn bo rt ^ 

CO M o cez o 



„ _ o c t~ 

« C I. t. 00 

S •" Cfl ce r-l 

a u r o >^ 
fSjSS-' 2 

S a 5 £ I 



^fa 



;z;_2ms' 



) O) •; 



bo ^ M) i- -; 

?'S ago 

B o S to '3 
xie X «! 

» * £ * n, 
.2 =' .1 ^ S) 




<5JCO'a<ic«ot~ooCTjOi-i(Neo'^in«ot~ao3)Or-iCTmTj<m!p 

■-lrH.-lrHr-ii-H-Hf-(rHr-l(?<(N(ri(NOJ(NIN 



219 



oooooomoir^iocoooooioooco oooocooooooooo^osooxior^oooooooot^oooo 



■^ CJ G7 c» t^ c< i-H o o L'; lo CD 



Tfifjioo^oooo^oooO'-'Oanoiococoooooooajr-iioo 



M lO O C^ r— t^ 



G* m cN in 



i-i CN C^ rl 




.2 






bo CO 


o 




ca 


$ 


^ 


>4 


1 


!/.• 


a 


1^ 


iS 




m 


^ 
























s 


1 


a 


s 


» 



^ K c 'o a 



a; © a; -^ 

bJD be w c3 
CS CS 0! tf — ' 

0-2 



§■3 
5o 



oo_oo<sSa .S:S> 

c2 = <='ooa5rta-^ — 
2- — " "r •- 'J 0) * ^ a =0 
be ra ca ce ce M bcii a- bc^ 

* t t:r rt =oi-J «o S 

^ xx^xxW bOM)^ bCo 

■p:cadac'C5S'>5-^ 

t,^c3c3cCcCt-*v:*_xa _ „ „ 

© »- t- t- « u a^ o o 4> c c; a> oj oi ^ ^'^ o «^ ^ o a; 0^ 3^ iij o a^ oi OJ it t- t- 
OC H f-i H E-l E-l IB PL, CLi 02 Oi P! OC !B 05 H Pn K t» &< 33 K Co tc Cl, co m 05 OJ fi H 



TO _r.a 00 ^ .00 2 -H 

'"_" £" uS"".,5_r 

^ S ^ 2 ^ £ „ 

r-g - ce o =« S 
^SfSa-'^if - 

<P C J- f5 F-i ID -S 

^•a-S » » ^^■ 
c3 S " o _o CO --s 

S bp S C O bJ3 



I ^ J2 _) 00 






S o 



-a 
a' =" 



ja-*^ 






" oT 5 . <'~' 00 



QO" -^ "■" 
r- r] (~" 

n a - ^ 

■g^"S 
... ^2-gc 

ISo-gIS 

S J3 '^ .^. ■*- M 



; c ^ > a » 
: ■»: " a a a 

^^•S a ? 
•n a 0; "■ - 






ca ^ 



5 o 



cfl ja 
aS 



t; =4 



j; o aj s 



" 0; J* 

c ^ be 

I o« a a 
$ ca a o o 

£ 1-5 OJ S -i" 

a g ^^ « 

J- !C m o O 

" o " " X 
•" ■ - "S 3 a 
s. ca es 



« a S 2 '^ x 

3-? S S ra 
a ■?; s S (S ca 

&5S°aO 
ca c != & s 6 

II -5o^ 

_, ja -r; a ,^ ^ 



_ ca 

s" !; J^ 00 a -"5 

g ca 00 -^ 5 » " 
a, a -H . > a « 

a (C „ J3 Zl ^ IB 



?|||^^5 



o 
I 

^00 £ -ii S) 3) 3) a 






r^S P 



a a. 



a 0^ ^ q; O ^ 

3J bo c O bo c 

S J E 'H » 'E ' 

O ^ OJ 0) o u 



5£ 



^ =3 c; (H 03 

2 be „ c o o S 
O. D. C O. 



: be; 
' 5; i;i i; a a a a 
: ^ g iS ca cs s c8 






a< 

ca ,- 



£w 



^, a ca >> 

'I 5 "i^ (£!§,€ 



cap! 

2 a " o 






<u jS ^ ci S ^ * 



;s>^ 










izct^ 00 oi 3; r-f c^ CO 



oooio— -(NCD^t'iocot-Qoaio-HOJcO'rmcct* 



u5minto»ou^ioif:mir5CD<0(©«':ovocD^':occc^^"t*t>c*t't^*> 



220 






•jaqonoA 
JO 'OK 



5o 






Is 

'Sf!H.2 



jS g - « s ^ 



^ ^•^ -^ ►^ '"J? i^3 » 



; > 



^ s 1 ^ sc < 



—.00 
O i^ "^ 

CC GO ^- 
S "^ " 

->^ aS 
^< o 

^ o ^ c 



"_-, ^: 



^3 h* -a 
-co 3 " S 






s > ca '^ S 
- - ^ °P o S J3 
-> c t »i< '^ J3 - ^ 



c -2 

*^ 00 
-*j >^ C5 



c "i 






a -. =• ?^ r, - 



Oi t; ?2 co'-^ r3'^_L*+3 ^ 

tie— "tESOmOU-S 

e 0) ■r oj Q. ? ? o u 

o o .- u sT ^ r., ^- u 






-O ^ "^ l-H 



V, ^ =5 fe 2 S >■& Ml- 

'^ 2 -^ '~ -^ -^ '~ 

a a 



- > Z a/"J<! S" w> 1-" 2 



-<; 



= -e -^ 



> > > S *-. ■ 



mZ 1^-^;;] 2-2 S 
S§ I ^z ■?_-§« 

M ce c o o < 

su S £ iE t - 

tf o o o ia: Ml I _ 

2 •- •- »- 5 2 -^ « ' 



O tX'- 






r/^ r/> ^ ^ tti r/1 5^ ^ m t 



(So ff 



r". "-^ a 2 £ <! 



a « 






Hi 



o „ ■*■ ~ 









1) Oi 



00 o o — I <M n ' 



lOtcr-aioiO^tMcO'wmffit^ooojo-HCj-o- 



^~c-a;aooo<^)ooclOOOQOc»aoaJO)a>0)05Cn350>o>o>ooooooo 



a 










a 


o 




^ 


a 










J3 





^ <j a o 

CC 1; ^ Sh 

o a o "^ 
S a 



— 1 1^ — 

•a (^ "". o 

■2 = ^9 

ce a, & a. 






:JJ a 

.!-" S a I 

I-) 2^b 



1-1 o) r: -5^ 



221 



oooooooGDOoooc;oocjooir:oLocooooLoooJooxcJOO ct-oocxooix(nooooa:oo 

CllOOCOOOOCi — OOOOOO — OOC^O— OOOOOmOCiOOOliTtiOOi OOC^OOlQ — OOt-COOOOlCO-Ow 

o-^i^c^oooioioioiciTsoccocooo—'Ocoio^iootjio—'r^Qoai''^ '?*':■» ooc^^iOOTroot^cO'CLomG^ir^oo 

"' "' ' '" "' "' '" "" T^ — CO -V -^ CO ^ — t^ -— O t^ -^ --< GO C* -Tt 



r-i TT r? oi m r- io r- : 



ir; o r^ c^ o 



" (7( I— . c^ -^ ' 



00 ■< ~ — I 



o— < 

Q ce TO _; o 

-- 5. o.-- t'S ^22 jr_. <J 
=:oo ^ 






f~~ 



— — 'S °° -j 
<-S<:.2:::'S 



^-<! 



< 5 






^-^^ 



ooS 






Cl.-^ 00 X 






.2 ^ H -c 



" o „-.ti 5.-- s ca "^ -ti a 



ce c = o 






'-^ i? '^1. '-^ -*^ +-* ^ — . a^ ^ OJ — ' 'O _ £3 



h- i». " ■ t^ ^ '^ S -^ 'Z. '^ '^ *^ ^ 

ScoMOxWMeuKxt/j^PieLiXCUoiKi-lKJiHLeccpHKPHOfeCixaBKoE-i 



ca ~ •? ^ ^ «"" '^' a ■ 

llanx'3S??ote£'cs5 
c IB 0; » » p o _p — .a h2 ," " ' - 






fa <>» _; 
—I a ->,t» 

00 w — I 

^ • •- • r- CO <•. - 

^-:= X a ^ J S Q r -- 
•g<J7^s^a-i:3o-t5 

g O fe -O g g O §;,-§ 'I 

"- " g2o| g;^ 5p 

=^ S-a J ^ii ccl^o 
-j;<;a'-'o:go-E»ce 

il'HI'Ela^'E'E 






-00 



a c8' 

a - .-2S§S 
«ii a >-5g 
H~ a >; - . 

— "2 ^ S •- .i 
S - > t: t £ 

►5 bb-a ce ^ ^ 
a § ^ " " 

a s£ "^ 'u >7 ^> 
a) £ s << K 

« S g'^ g § 

5 S o o p p 
'E 'E a 'E a a 

oi aj aJ a; a* D 
!» CC PS « PJ PJ 







222 



o o o o o o o 
o o o oo o o 

O m lO lO o »c "^ 
C< r-< .H r- r-i i-^ i-H 



or^oocJOccocro-poooooooomLOooioi-o 

«5(MOt- — 0000 = 3-. OOOf-OwO-ft-OOCOtOm 

c;mO'«rc^to^^00 — c^ir^if-oir^ooaior^-fl-iri-H-aDoo 



•jgqonoA 
JO -OH 



• o o 



•^-'2 -' 



cS H 



c5 - ^--^-S iT 

? s •"' =^ I £ -9 
5 i: '^ 2 <^ > 5 
o-o ce S 0) c o 



1^ s s s s s s 

.c j3 ^ o j= .a ja 
o o o o u =-' P 
cc r3 c3 C3 ce " ri 

^ 12; ^ z !z: Z ;25 

O) 03 <1J IJ 9 IJ IJ 

I II '11 II 
O o o o o o o 

o "s "3 "i "s "S "s 

a) s s s s s d 
p:; Pm !^ P^ ^ th ;^ 



■£0 

; J . o o c o o 

h5 OJ fO "C 'O 'C 'O 

dS 

CD r* 00 cj o •-J 7j 
o 10 »c »^ cc to ^ 



i6 » 









S 









00 S —4 



' « -H "^ 



w r- i^ ' OC 00 >5 ■ bToB S f- " t^ - 

|<S^^HS^d5J2oW 










1-i o-fe Q H ffi -; M Hi 1-5 :oKS :QiJg:>siS 






gK 



fUCOTTiocor-oooo- 



( r-i ri f-( ri r-f O CJ CJ C* TJITJ 



223 



CiraOlOtOOOOO!OOOOOOOQOOOaOOO!OC50000000J 
OOOtMOOOClOOlOOOOOOCCWOr-mOO^O^OOOOO-^ 

oir-t~ooooc»'.oooooiootoQoom(r>oorHincooooioioc<ocj 

(?< — . t~ «5 ,— t-H ri t— (N <N I-H r-l (M ^ rH H 



■-^ CI 






2> ■ !>,-^ f^ « 



of 2 



ti CI g 



22 o 



^?i 






^fc 






- d ^ n '"' f^ 







eo^- 












K g&<<jj 3 



; ® 3 s -,- : : 2 : : ° ° ■ s 






224 



1^ -^ J, — 

22 >. ^>> 
i c o c _- s d _r s d d d d d 
5CCa g^Q g'7QaQClQ( 

■Bo ? S 
oi -r a. -r 

So; s£ 



o a 






rt cj o? c (N 7J OJ t^ »r^ ?i t^ o o ic c LO — ci o o — L'; ^j '^ o o ^. r? 
lo iQ -^ T}« c^ t^ ~- ^^ -^ ct »rt ^ ir; — — « o — ' o c^ c; cc 



C O = O lOO -T 

— o o o O) .-^ ir^ 
m net — Ot-= o 



•.wqonoA 
JO -OK 



00 c ^ 



f-^ '^U C- -J -^ 



= 22 d 
'^ . a 
o a; 3 



■2 -^-^ S s J 

■^ -P .- "^ 00 -C le K- 
oj a; (p ^ — 0) < ^z; 



o2S s 



5 — i *22 --< "^ 






M 



^ — s — ' o 









a a .i S 
.9 =r 















tao^ m: 



1 oK 



E-i H S t» ia< C5 PS PS t» (1- 



cs*> S _ , 

<£ f £ '£ S S S » <6 

a: Ph CC M GO 5B CB -U PC 



0<C 



j:'2i.^=^ 



gad. 



>»s 



3 .-fH 2 ""1 - 
is s 0) a s 

•g = .■^'~l 2 a -^ 
'^liaa'-^H a 
o 2 5 i> fl •» S 

- ^* .,7-^ a. - 
' S i: -I i:^ S •= 

•spoilt 
0) g 9 S p SiE 

£ t> a dj s > t: 
X t- a -— X I, c 

o a; '- ^ c c 1* 
Ph aj t- E-i Ph X S3 



1^ a 

q5^- -22 a J. 

= b-^ a o 2 

" «:= a -^ - 

J — aj a !- i-s — I a) 

• f^ a a a* ^ - a 



-►^ J^ x" "*^ a a 



^5 1^ 



^< I' 

"■a "S - 



5 a H 2 r 
) -^ I' . r a ^ 



III 

■5-5 a 
1, a; S 



o - a— C H * 

t~ ^ 01 X a »^ > 

X i; * » Ma jj 

a oj ?E ^ oj ic 

r„ -c fcc o o ttc o 

JO a CO ^ -r cs ^ 

— «ii a C'S a 



r» 






fcDj 



J22^-S 
^ a o. 
a oT.S r 
g, a -g o 



S f-( t, S Pi !B Ph f4 05 Ph e S 



s a J s^S? 

■g a vSS. 

^ —. fen t- i^ 



>il5 a a 

i X S " 

a eg 



r- a w r-i °* 

a o > g W c , 



S 



.■a ■„ - 

t- fcc 3 






o-S 



iri»|^ 



reOEOpPH 



>-5 1-3 a Cu 1-5 .ufcig . ■ . Q J s; a: cc 



5 — ■'- 



'gj a 



.2§ 



a si-^ 



' «2 






Q^^ 



t '^ --ai a a 
^ 3 1-5 to M 



:<g 



ojt^ 



rHr-lr-lr-ir1r-i-lr-lr-i-l<?<(nCTC)C<IUC<OJC<C»nC>;c-5r5WneOCOC^CTWrr 



241 



o o o o_ 



■o >>2 



00 00 0000 

dodo— ."r^bo"— .o'— 6 



si 2» cf ui ?» oi y 
t- f^ i>- Is. r* f^ ^^ 

00 aO 00 5-. m '„ rri 



qqaQg_-'7-bQQft«g>>gQQ|>gQ^gQ 



— o" 
gP 



« o » o 5 S » 



t™ f^ f~ l~ i„ t— ' /-- 

. ,r-t'-'r-' , ^ -— ' w I— I iln . ... 

Q a> o^'^ o '^ o ^ o 



SB2 






OiOOOO OOOOQOOOJOOOOOOOOO 



CO o o o o 
m o o mo 



^tOTlOOOOOOO 



O O O O O O <M I 

t^ o Tj< t* ^- (7i Oi o c^ ^ in »o lo -^ CO 



^ O O O O CO O) 
iCt-OIJOOjTC ,„,-„^_ 
rH OOrHOOOO O) CO — Ol 



(jjt»^00O33tO-*O— >00f~: 

^1 -rt — yvi ,^ r-^ C^ O '— -- 

(M c) in lo 



c^ o o in o 









- to 60 -s 



in 00 00 



OT! 5"^ 

-" a-^^- 
r3 ja ■*= c 

,S go 



ft ^5 
22 <! 



0) 



-C8 



.2 44 ^ '^ •:; 

g o o _- o 






' TE-cT a a 
cs o x tij M 



bo 



t,^ =? 



?o3 _, 

5 a a ^ 5 
•3S J; a; o D 

.S 2 2 o 
> a a §3 

to 5 O O 00 

X C £ a a 

o S 3 a; ® 



Sa^ll 
a II g I 

S OJ oi* a; o 
t- « c; o o 'd 

> > > a 'E 

'd 0; O) i; 






ff^ g 

Ta a CO leH cd 

"rl-So§ 



<:-z: as a 

=s5,2a5;>-'mO'3-S'?* 
^^aS2^-g-gS£ 

a. « " ce c-r; « « a S 
5t;'oa<jo i. a ao--; p. 
2 «-^^" =3 3 S §<: 

af-^ " S S "-^ g-'S a -a 
liilllili ' 



g o aj o *" 



5 £; t.V-.'V. a ^ a a a o 



F^cj 



0!00 






ss 



; ^ -E -S 3 
" — ' « 



l^<- 



<— 00 



«»! 



. - 3< • OO 

•a <i - > -^ <?' "^ 

■3 „-'i;'2^ S'a 
toS ^-o-uig- 
a •- *'' to u '^ ts 
•? i 2-.a § y- S 
o g a a •" i" s 

aS5fig£;2s 

a; tH o ^ S o 03 
« Cl3 O O 02 fa C5 



£ g<co g 
? !0 g 'C J 
<J 2 2*^ o 

? §) S .2 § 

to C5 "r: -t; .^ 

CS P CS O.C 

^.a <D--- 



a s 



m 1^ '^ s^ •—' O c T^ 

1 1 a".2 13" ^ Sfi^ - 



■OfrtH aiS 5 55? 

tS CO — 2 



aa&^-S"^^ I- 
§.2Sg£fStli 

a; c8^2 to^!a.a ^ o 
O O -r a: w yi -jz m 

^^tOy^OCJ uo 

a a S '5 .S>'> •> 'p. > 




J a g 

! a g 

<Oi-s 



S •« a 

® cu s.a 

o« g § 



2^fea§il 
a.® ? « §"3 « 






Eh ^ 



co^*ooo^o ^cicO'^insot^QDOso^cico'^intct- 
-5iTr^'3'in inininininmminintocototo:oto»to 



r-t tn n ■vn to t~ ooct>o— '(7)co'3'in'^t~aooo — 



16 H E 



242 



CT S» CI 5» 

f~ £• t~ J; 



2? -T 



odS; 



00 00 



00 OCX OOCX) QCOOCOOO i^ (^00 

.- a ■- a-- a~H~ pt.^ as"- 



1-5 p; » 

— o ^ C • 



ooomoo«oot~oi--ooioCTOcjoocoo"3'Oin 



xojwf-^iOL'^i^ooaLiO 



5xa!CO»3iC^oioMOf-ocjto comocr, oo!to«ioejT(-<n 



* 



, O I~ O CO i-H 0< r-l 



ccQoxo^rHO r^ct-vnt-n 



XO X t~ 



>.?} 



'icj 



^ >>S X -= ^ CS 









C X 

Si a a 01 



s i^ >> a o - s- c s 

■ES .Soil's:? a ^3-c|§ 
S-K-c* cS^tc rt ® S - a 









:a > - 



'^ > o 



' o a 
" o g g a -^ 5 



^ &,l a ■? 



X 00 

aa-i'-' "-"Ti 

X 'T 10 X 

>-,r-l '-< <JJ rt 

S S"^ a '*' 
_ « a eg a 



r~ " a 



S-= «x 



^3t3" 



^_ a 
a_- 



S-5 C5 g 



0) o S'S s 



f, tor ^ j= a »n 5?-- .t; .-s „ 
.2 ■§ .2 S 5; gj-§ a * * a -^ 






1 at — 

■ S a- 









= 11 §^. I- 
"O « j: a ? 

■2 > C5 '0 ^ > 



a oio a 



>; ai/3 ca 
o a . — ' 
&, J ^ « ^^ 
• ® • .a 
Em S =^ O i 

Ci ^ ^ Ph' Ph 



*i £ 5 5 i 
aSS'-"* 



a o 

S a- 

a §■ 



o " 

MO 



sa 



» 'r 2 r°= to"^ .S 



; ^ » V ^ -- 
■ >..2-K :^ -a 5 «^ 

1»^Ph «S a; ^ >K 
Eh I-; »S i-i C2 H « << 



a 

_ . o 

a •" 

o 
O 



=51.2 



Qj a 

S-r a-- s 

- • ^ : 2 c ;d - _^ 

v<.«J ■ tcV a fa 

00 :^ps?; :s 



= C2^ 
- c bjD a 



fih g 



^^ 



•aaqonOA 
JO ON 



.-l-H-Hr-ii-l-lp-r-l« — <NClffJ<;iCJ0JC)C}01(rJ«««««r5CO 



243 



lpOlr^o5lOl^oomcooooooO'-^o^'OoodOo■^ooma5»r5»ooooolOOOOO 
c^o^-oasaicoooc^i-HOOooooooioocjr-c^oooiOoiot^oif^oooooicoiOOTo 

C2^C»OCTC^f^»t^OCIt*mOir50lOC>0|irt«OOOOJ'^0005COOT}«Or-tQOO-^OO^mOp-tO 
«e- r-l(MrHr-lr-l«— < _|,-iO 



o o 



■is rt • f~ 



^-5 £oo 



||2 



^ — -' 



s _, 



o o- 

"-^ '^2 ?r ^ a i^ 

tit; ^ "1-5 2 
O 0_ S (E 9 

cs CO ■^ C ^ 2 

^ I-" OJ ^ Q « 



3 ►-5 'XI 



U CO 












aoo_ fl22 









*-5 „ 



~5?aci;acD"S3nJia<ir5Saos cd^ s 
+- ^ a ^ ^ 

illllfig 



zi ^'u 



? a 5 '^ 
fJJ a S CD 

'S -2 ■> -g 'i 

■" O Oi !> 



S- _ ^ „, bo =i - 
g g O S =3 g 2 

■-; ca « ifi j§ a) a 

.2 Wl £5 ^ •-■ C3 ^ 

■a^-S a £;-S a 

3^ cK o a> S o cu 



a *-' a ^ — I 



S a -^S ^ Q r 

St' a ce 60 s 






;'^ a 



&"S § >;^ a 

0) O Sh 3j Q Q) 



•jaqonoA 



a » 

o u 



S H Q o o oi ^ 
*^ " "S) 60 a • 



6o = !*- 






>.gH a a.==(? o^ ot-isS^ffi o-r,5;w o o 



a|s 

III 

-," *^ • 



pa . ^ 
5 °> 



^ 60 

^u 

a ® 

O ^ ^ 

lid a 






6oa 



60 



a ■ 03 

aid ;B 
oJH 1 6 






244 



ooinootMooooooootOLtoooinoooot-ooomooccoiooof^oooocnoj 



oot-^-'rOQoooo^-^oo 



• ira-HtrOLOTi-aoooiooc^cocmooooific-. CO 



ot^o^cooooccor^oio-^oococot^oc^ort— iGOMwCOoooaot-coo^wccaoomr^t^— <v 
CO to" CO i-T i-T 



C* » r- Tji TP Ci tri fH (?i lO 30 Ol 3^ 



•jaqonoA 
JO -OM 



00 r^oo 
<^ S-1 

° s ^ 

S^^ ago 
> .2 — a. =< " 



00 '1 '3 J3 ?5 ? 

•" 12 o s s s 

" i, o a g a 

" , _ ^ S) tJ3 IJD to 

•■3'^S''i.S'3 = o a 
51 >^'X 2"i^ ce ce c3 « 

■*" "^ ^ i « ■'ff'S'^-o ^ >> ■ g _; a 
r-©s27:cac3ccc3£5^^?:»3 



S_co 

a o _, 
a 5'->-'^ -* 



^.a r- a a a a 



t,cc 






1:^ o a.g.af a > o |<! § g^^-^ . | >; | g |s S = .« a « = 



Is 



• - ■ u » 

J a ca,^; a a 



03 o ^ 'a 'O 




^ 9 oQ 



0.r_ ■- 






£ s'^Sh^ a. 






P9 

13. 55: 



S — -a "> 
« 3 cr^"! a 









O 3 



: ..a 



§g5 

•s5-a 

as 

a gp3 
Oi-sM 



Kg? 



.g-13 go's 



o . 
OP3( 



tDr^OiO^OJCo-^riotot^aooo— '(?JCOTrictoi^QDaso--iCTeO'*»ocor*Ci— 'CJCo^«cDi^aoa>o 
•5iW^iraini.oiomm>r3omi.ototototototDtDtototDr-t^t~t-t^t-t-t-t-QoaDOOooQoaocDaoooo> 



2 >> 



245 



cDa>in'fl«Ti"Ooooooo« 



CTi-HO -3; 



'ooo-^aj-^oc 



^ ^ (?» O O O TP O 00 I-'. 00 CO 00 



Gi OOO-^OOQOIOOO^C^OO 

OOOlOf^iTJ'^OO 



O 00 O 05 



r^io-:rcj oot^coioio 



oaocrj oo 
oifjM mo 

i-H rH O (M !P 



o o 5 o 






-^"oofiSs 

~ Oi-<00^ 

i- t- I— t 

O- CO _- _ - 

"^ ^ 'S S;- o 

CJ ® ^ S *^ 

SES S © s 
o o ■£ -jj 5 

to £lD ^ °^ ^ 

.g-g a a a 



I 00 ^O— '-I 

5 f- 



'" f- s ^- 



„-05 



DOO 



o c:i u o 

C) 4) ® Ci 



h fr. ^ h ^ 

<© O «) ® 01 



^ s ^ -<= s 

bn^^ a 5; u fl D- 1>^ 
ai->iO-2oo-i4 

> -S > g S g fl > 

3j O OJ S" ■■« %H t- © 
05 (In IB Eh S H Eh 05 



C! ^« 






OJ a ^ a 



■-Jdw^iooo^'S^t^ooaiO^ 



o a 

|a 

a a> 
° -s 
SS 

i^ ^ CD 



» a 

2 = 



.-^S^ 



, -■ ^ 00 rO ^T 

,-^.H g-a-i p a 
-f~ 3 a _- j; n 

a „,-« >. =! g''o 

-a a 03 1=! CO c . 

§.9 ■^ s s , 5 
n. ■-. ^ o ^ t. 



_-ra 



be; 



rl r« .-c a -O ^ 

a) 0) S ® 1- is o 



SP-S 






;Q0_^ 



» a-2s a 

^ o a; 0*"*^ 

a s -2 rH-O 



2 g-g^i 

O p c^ ^ P 

o o oi° 

3 '^ T a "3 
« a a! o'.s 

lllll 

o PI a +s +* 
cd cd c2 £3 d 






•^ 3 s^^Mm al 



t~ —1 

00 t~ 
r-OO 

a oj 
a a 

■^S" •- 
- £ ^ ® 



g cu CS ^ ^ 



^ CO 00 00 »o CO f» cj 00 cr. o —" ci 
f-H(McoTj«Tt<^imoi.*cct^t-- 






O lO— ' to O) 



12 5j 



S;?? 



J 3 § a 
-Zoo 

a o * . 
'^- 's & 

^ -P C3 

o §*•;: gi 

■■3 g S a> 

5 g c3::3 

02 8h1^S 



© OJ O 33 

c "* a 



i-t CO t* OJ-^ 



iTi ^- t^ OS CO 



246 



iraoooo 
t» 000 o 

O O LOO 



o in o i-'i o 
o CT in t- Lo 



r^ i-j 



•jaqonoA 
JO 'ON 



as 



15 "3 



^2 



So 



a a o-^ 

O O J3 — 

t: t: > g- 

o o o g 

fl c •-^■*^ 
a! cs aj a 



ffl . 

■0.9 






o 1-- in S5 



cc s 

s 






■" 00 



,00 

o o'.S S^ 
g S S .2 ,2 



u u s i> a, t-tc-aa^o) 



a « S 



o . 
t^ o 

00 CO 

a s 
31-5 



a: — 






i-J o 

mm 



p:« 






H 



tHNe 



« — 25 



247 



Dd.- 



-JReceipts of late Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands from July 1, 1871, 

to June 30, 1872. 



Amount. 



July 1, 1871 
July 22,1871 



Sept. 4 
Oct. 31 
Jan. 27 
Mar. 20 
Mar. 25, 



Apr. 
Apr. 

Apr. 12; 

Apr. 15, 

Apr. 19 

Apr. 24 

Apr. 27, 



May 
May 
May 
May 
May 
May 
May 
May 
Mav 



June 7, 
June 29, 
June 30 



1871 
1871 
1872 
1872 
1872 

1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 

1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1872 
1672 
1872 
1872 

1872 
1872 
1672 



Balance July 1. 1871 

Amount received for one week's board in hospital 
Amount received on draft 2149, war warrant 1995 . 



$6 00 
'173,919 21 



Unclaimed amount paid on voucher in March, 1868 

Amount received froui Maj. J. M. Brown 

Amount withheld from H. H. Ray 

Amount received from C. S. Roberts to balance settled. 
Amount received from District of Columbia 



Amount received from gale of furnituce . 
do 



-do 
.do 
.do , 
.do 



Amount received from District of Columbia. 



Amount received from sale of furniture . 
do 



.do 
.do 
.do 
.do 
.do 
.do 
.do 



Amount received from H. Page, error property returns 

Amount received from District of Columbia 

do , 



44 
1,678 00 



40 74 
16 74 
64 00 
136 30 
25 27 
66 40 
2, 111 60 



59 53 

435 00 

239 en 

33 48 

37 09 

174 42 

35 26 

15 10 

9 50 



15 00 

3, 000 00 

228 50 



$2,684 98 



, 925 21 

62 80 
889 08 
100 00 



2,461 05 



3, 243 50 



186, 284 24 



■ The foillowing items make up this sum : 

Appropriation for 1672 

Balances of appropriations for previous years. 



$165,500 00 

8,419 21 

Total 173,919 21 



-Receipts in the year ending June 30, 1872, that might properly he used to defray i-xpenses 
incurred prior to June '.iO, 1871. 



Date, 




Amouiit. 


Total. 








$2,684 98 

8,419 21 

62 80 


July 22,1871 






Sept. 4, 1871 






•Oct. 31, 1871 






689 08 


Mar. 20,1872 


Amount received from C. S. Roberts to balance settled 




44 


Apr. 1, 1872 




$40 74 
16 74 
64 00 

136 30 
25 27 
66 40 




Apr. 6, 18V2 






Apr. 12,1872 


do 




Aor. 15,1872 


do 




Apr. 19,1872 
Apr. 24,1872 


do .. . 




do 






do 


349 45 


May 2, 1872 


09 53 

435 00 

239 80 

33 48 

37 09 

174 42 

35 26' 

15 10 

9 50 


May 2, 1872 
May 2, 1872 


do 




do 




May 6, 1872 
May 6, 1872 






do 




May 4, 1672 


do... 




May 7, 1872 


do 




May 11,1872 


do 




May 29,1872 

June 7, 1872 


do 






1,039 16 
15 00 




Total 








13,460 14 









248 

Exhibit D^. 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abaudoued Lauds.] 

Voucher No. 90. — Abstract of expenditures. 

March, 1871, Alex. E. Shepherd «& Bro., school-house and 

asylum $1G, 652 25 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

Aijril 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 90, March, 1871, 
accounts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. G. W. Balloch, chief disburing officer Bureau 
Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWEE, 

Acting Auditor. 

Tlie United States to Alex. B. Shepherd and Bro., Dr. 
ie71. 
Jauuary 14. For services' rendered and material furnished under the con- 
Q tract (copy annexed) dated August 11, 1870, for heating and 
ventilating Howard University building and the dormitory- 
'^ building adjacent thereto, known as Clark Hall, erected for 
§ the education of refugees and freedmen by the Bureau of 
-gj Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on the grounds 
a in the vicinity of Washington, D. C, known via Effingham 
■3 Place $16,652 25 



^ Sixteen thousand six hundred and fifty-two f^ dollars $16, 652 25 

I certify, on honor, that the above account is correct and just ; that 
the services were rendered and material furnished as stated, and were 
necessary for the public service, and are herewith expended in accord- 
ance with certificate of John A. Cole, inspector, herewith. 

J. M. BEOWN, 
Bvt. Lieut. Col. t&c, Q. M. 
Approved and ordered paid. 

Bvt. Maj. Gen. V. 8. A., Commissioner. 

Eeceived, at Washington, D. C., this 24th day of March, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $16,052.25, 
in full of the above account, by check JSTo. — , paid in currency, dated 
18th January, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) ALEX. E. SHEPHEED & BEOS. 

War Department, 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washinf/tooi City, January 14, 1871. 

I hereby certify that, in compliance with the instructions of the Com- 
missioner of this Bureau, dated September 20, 1870, I have inspected 
the work done and materials furnished by A. E. Shepherd & Bros., 
under their contract dated August 11, 1870, for heating and ventilating 
Howard University buildings and the dormitory-building adjacent 
thereto, known as Clark Hall, and find that the terms of said contract 
have been fully complied with. 

JOHN A. COLE, 
Civil Engineer and Inspector. 



249 
Exhibit E*'. 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freeduien and Abandoned. Lands.] 

Voucher No. 2. — Abstract of expenditures. 

October, 1871. Alex. E. Shepherd & Bros., school-house 

aud asylum $16, 652 25 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 2, supplementary 
account for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief 
disbursing oflicer Bureau of Eefugees and Abandoned Lands, on file in 
this office. 

A. M. GANGEWEE, 

Actiiig Auditor. 



The United States to Alex. R. Shepherd c^- Bros., Dr. 
1871. 
January 14. For services rendered and materials furnished under their con- 
^ tract, (copy annexed,) dated August 11, 1870, for heating aud 
. ventilating Howard University building, and the dormitory 
^^ building adjacent thereto, known as Clark Hall, erected for 
g the education of refugees and freedmen by the Bureau of 
"g, Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on the grounds 
a in the vicinity of Washington, D. C, known as Effingham 
'% Place $16,652 25 



^ Sixteen thousand six hundred and fifty -two nfo <iolla''"s, 16,652 25 

I certify, on honor, that the account is correct and just; that the ser- 
vices were rendered and materials furnished as stated, and were neces- 
sary for the public service, and are herewith expended in accordance 
\Yith certificate of John A. Cole, inspector, herewith. 
Approved and ordered paid. 

J. M. BEOWN, 
Bvt. Lieut. Col. and B. Q. M. 
O. O. Howard, 

Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Eeceived at Washington, D. C, this 14th day of January, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, sixteen thou- 
sand six hundred fifty-two dollars and twenty-five cents, in full of the 
above account, by checks Nos. 1,848, 1.971, 2,003, 23,434, 2,649, on the 
United States Treasury, dated August 24, 1870, September 12, 1870, 
September 20, 1870, November 20, 1870, and January 17, 1871. 

ALEX. E. SHEPHEED & BEOS. 

(Signed in duplicate.) 



250 

Exhibit F^ 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.] 

Voucher N^o. 51.— Abstract of cjqjenditures. 

July, 1871.— H. M. Tupper, school-house and asylum $3,000 00 

Tkeasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher No. 51, July, 1871, 
account of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W, Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this 
ofiice. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

The United States to H. M. Tupper, Dr. 

January 19, 1871. — For material furnished in the construction of a school- 
building, designed for the education of refugees and freedmen, known as 
the Shaw Collegiate Institute, at Raleigh, N. C. 

No. 1. — Francis J. Menuinger, one hundred and fifty (150) barrels of lime, at 
one dollar and fifty cents ($1..50) per barrel $225 00 

No. 2. — G. S. H. Appleget, one hundred and forty thousand (140,000) brick, at 
(12) twelve dollars per thousand 1, 680 00 

Thirty-seven window-frames, at ten (10) dollars per frame 370 00 

No. 3. — C. F. Dowd & Co., twenty thousand (20,000) feet of dressed flooring, 

at twenty-five (25) dollars per thousand 500 00 

Fifteen thousand feet (15,000) undressed lumber, at fifteen (15) dollars per 

thousand 225 00 

Three thousand dollars 3,000 00 

I solemnly affirm that the above account is correct and just; that the 
services were rendered and material furnished and used as stated, and 
were necessary for the public service. 

H. M. TUPPER. . 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Bvt. Major-General^ U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C., this 25th day of July, 1871, from Bvt. 
Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, three thousand 

dollars and cents, in full of the above account, by check No. 242, 

on the UnitediStates assistant treasurer of (at) New York, dated April 
12, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) 

H. M. TUPPER. 

Subscribed and affirmed to before me this day, January 18, 1871. 

S. D. HARRISON, J. P. 

North Carolina, Wake County : 

I, J. N. Bunting, clerk of the superior court for the county of Wake, 
do hereby certify that Sidney D. Harrison, of the city of Raleigh and 



251 

county aforesaid, is a justice of the peace for said county, and as such 
his official acts are entitled to due credit and consideration. 

In witness whereof I hereunto sign my name and affix the official seal 
of my office at Ealeigh, this the 19th day of January, A. D. 1871. 

[SEAL.] J. N. BUNTING, 

Cleric of the Superior Court for Walce County. 



Exhibit G^ 

[Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds.] 

Voucher No. 52. — Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. E. E. L.Taylor, school-house and asylum $16, 500 82 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher No. 52, July, 1871, 
accounts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this 
Office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

Washington, D. C, April 7, 1871. 

The United States to E. E. L. Taylor, Dr. 

For materials furnished in tlie construction of school buikling at New Or- 
leans, La., for the education of refugees and freedmen, known as Lelaud 
University, to wit : ^ 

200,000 feet'piue lumber, at .|30 per M $6,000 00 

400,000 brick, at $17 per M 6,800 00 

40,000 lath, at 12.25 per M 90 00 

200 barrels lime, at $1.75 per barrel 350 00 

50 kegs nails, at $4 per keg 200 00 

4 tons plaster Paris, at $6 per ton 24 00 

92 doors, with frames, at $12 per door 1, 104 00 

152 window-sash, at $6 per window 912 00 

20,833 feet joists, 2i by 10, at $25 per M 520 82 

5 outside doors, at $25 per door 125 00 

12,500 feet pine flooring, at $30 per M 375 00 

Total 16,500 82 

I certify, on honor, that the above account is correct and just ; that 
the materials were furnished and expende.d as stated, and were neces- 
sary for the public service. 

E. C. YOGELL, 
Agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 25th day of July, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, sixteen 



252 

thousand five hundred dollars and eighty-two cents, in full of the above 
account by check No. 262, on the assistant treasurer at New York. 

Dated April 19, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) E. E. L. TAYLOR. 



Exhibit H''. 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.] 

Voucher No. 53. — Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. Joseph Dickinson, school-house and asylum $3,000 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 53, July, 1871, ac- 
counts of Brev. Brig. Gen'l Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing ofacer. 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

Indorsement. 

At a meeting of the Missionary Board of Indiana Yearly Meeting of 
Friends, held Firstmonth (January) 30, 1871, Joseph Dickinson, secre- 
tary of our, business committee, was authorized to draw the money 
from General O. O. Howard, Commissioner of Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands for the building of the new school 
house at Helena, Arkansas. 

TIMOTHY HARRISON, Secretary. 



The United States to Joseph Dickinson, clerk of business committee of Missionary Board of In- 
diana Yearly Meeting of Friends, Dr. 
1871. 
April 25. For materials furnished in tlie construction of scliool-building at Hel- 
ena, Arkansas, designated for the education of refugees and freed- 
men : 
Sixty thousand feet of dressed flooring, at six dollars per thousand 

feet .- $360 

Fifty thousand feet of undressed drv lumber, at forty dollars per 

thousand feet ." .' 2,000 

Fourteen doors and frames, at $4.50 each 63 

Eigiiteen window-frames, at $2.28 each 41 

Twenty thousand brick, and laying, at $15 per thousand 300 

Eight hundred pounds of nails, at seven cents per pound 56 

Sixty barrels of lime, at three dollars each 180 

Total 1 3,000 

I solemnly affirm that the above account is correct and just ; that the 
materials were furnished and used as stated, and were necessary for the 
public service. ^ 

JOSEPH DICKINSON, 
Cleric of Business Committee of Missionary Board 

of Indiana Yearly fleeting of Friends. 
Subscribed and affirmed to before me this 2d day of May, 1871. • 
I SEAL.] ABEL L. STUDY, 

Notary Public. 



Jy 



253 

State of Indiana, 

Wayne County, ss : 

I, Win. W. Dudley, clerk of the circuit court within and for the county 
of Wayne aforesaid, do hereby certify that Abel L. Study, esq., is a no- 
tary public within and for said county, duly commissioned and qualified, 
and that full faith and credit ought to be given to his official acts, and 
that his term of office does not expire until December 19, 1871. 

In witness of which I hereunto affix the seal of said court, and sub- 
scribe my name, at Centreville, this 2d day of May, 1871. 

[SEAL.] WM. W. DUDLEY, Clerk. 

[Five-cent stamp.] 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Bvf. Maj. Gen., TJ. S. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 25th day of July, 1871, from Bvt. 
Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $3,000 in full 
of the above account, by check No. 327 on the United States assistant 
treasurer at New York, dated May 6, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) JOSEPH DICKINSON, 

Cleric, &c. 



Exhibit ¥. 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds.] 

Voucher No. 55. — Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. E. O. Tade, S. H. and asylums. $1, 500 00 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 

I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 55, July, 1871, ac- 
counts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this 
office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



The United States to E. 0. Tade, Dr. 
187L 
May 4.— For material furnished, required in the construction of a building 
at Chattanooga, Teuu., tor the education of refugees and freed- 
men, as follows : 107,143 bricli, at |14 per thousand $1,500 00 

Fifteen hundred dollars 1,500 00 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Brigadier- General^ United States Army, Commissioner, &c. 

I solemnly swear that the above account is correct and just j that the 



254 

services were rendered and material furnished and expended as stated, 
and were necessary for the public service. 

E. O. TADE. 

Signed and subscribed before me this 25th day of May, 1871. 
[SEAL.] THEO. G. MONTAGUE, 

Notary Public. 
Approved artd-ewi^d paid. / 

Brevet Major-general, United States Army, Commissioner. 

Eeceived at Washington, D. C, this 25th day of July, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, one thou- 
sand five hundred dollars and cents, in full of the above account, 

by check No. 380 on the assistant treasurer at New York, dated May 
20 1871 

(Signed in duplicate.) E. O. TADE. 

Exhibit J^ 

[Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.] 
Voucher No. 57. — Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. John Page, S. H. and asylum |1, 279 40 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 

I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher No. 57, July, 1871, 
accounts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this 
office. 

A. M. GANGBWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



[Copy of contract filed with voucher No. 309, for November, 1869.] 

The United States to John Page, Dr. 
1870. 
April 23. — For services rendered in constructing a building for the education 
of refugees and freedmen on lot situated on the corner of Es- 
planade and Derbigny streets, city of New Orleans, La., under . 
his contract of September 15, 1869, as per order of Bvt. Maj. 
Gen. O. O. Howard, dated August 12, 1869, 4th (and last) pav- 

ment |1,250 00 

For services laying 120 yards paving, at 12 cents per yard 14 40 

For services laying 190 feet of gutter, at 6 cents per foot 11 40 

For cutting curb-stone and making two box-gutters 3 60 

Twelve hundred and seventy-nine -j^po dollars 1, 279 40 

I certify, on honor, that the above account is correct and just ; that 
the services were rendered as stated, and were necessary for tlje public 
service. 

EDGAR C. BEMAN, 
Agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Ahandoyied Lands. 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 

Brigadier- General, United States Army, Commissioner. 



255 

Eeceived at Washington, D. C, tbis 25th day of July, 1S71, of Bvt. 
Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, twelve hundred 
and seventy-nine dollars and forty cents, in full of the above account, 
by check No. 392 on the United States assistant treasurer at New York, 
dated May 24, 1871. 

(Signed in duplicate.) JOHN PAGE. 



Exhibit K''. 

[Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands.] 

Voucher No. 64. — Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. J. Jillard & Son, S. H. and asylums . $27 35 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

April 15, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 64, July 1871, ac- 
counts of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



The United States to J. Jillard cj- Son, Dr. 

1871. 

Maj^ 1. For 49 lights glass 10x22 ® 40 c $19 60 

12. 12 lights glass 10x16® 30 c ,3 60 

12. 18 lights glass 10x14 'a) 15 c 2 70 

12. 14ilbs. putty 1 45 

Repairs schools and asylum. — 

Twenty-seven 1^0% dollars 27 35 

Washington, D. C. 

I certify that the above account is correct and just; and that the ar- 
tides -have been accounted for on my property -return for the quarter 
ending on the 30th of June, 1871. 

J. M. BROWN, 
Bvt. Lt. Col. and Chief Q. M. 
Approved and ordered paid. 



Brig. Gen, U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 25th day of July, 1871, of Bvt. 
Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $27.35, in full of 
the above account, by check No. — on the United States Treasury, 
dated (paid in currency) 187 . 

J. JILLARD & SON. 



256 

Exhibit L^. 

[Form No. 22.— No. 68.] 

Abstract of expenditures. 

July, 1871. Francis Mohun & Sons; school -house and asylums, 883.10 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

April 16, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 6S, July, 1871, in 
account of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



The United States to Francis Mokim if Sons, Dr. 
1871. 

Arml 1. For 576 feet 2x12x24, N. C, ® 4* |l25 92 

115 feet 4-4 8econd.s ® bi 6 32 

6. 682feet W. P. culls, fa) U 23 87 

96 feet 3x4x16® 2J 2 16 

28. 14feet4-4 select,® 6* 91 

14 dressed, 2 sides 07 

May 1. 658 feet 4-4 ciiUiugs ® 2| 18 09 

27. 96 feet N. C, 4x6x12, ® 4.^ 4 32 

27. 64 feet 3x4x16, ® 2i 144 

Dollars 83 10 

Repairs schools and asylums. 

I certify that the above account is correct and just ; that the articles 
have been accounted for on my property-returns for the quarter ending 
on the 30th June, 1871. 

J. M. BROWN, 
Bvt. Lt. Col and Chief Quartermaster. 

Received at Washington, D. C., this 25th day of July, 1871, of Bvt. 
Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $83.10, in full 
of the above account, by check No. — on the United States Treasury, 
dated (paid in currency) 187 . 

FRANCIS MOHUN & SONS. 

(Duplicate.) 



Exhibit M^. 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

A2)ril 16, 1874. 

1 certify that the within is a true copy of letter of transmittal accom- 
panying supplementary account for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. 
George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands* on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



22i 



;d.— odooododooooodooddd6oooco6dd_-s^"ooodood6docco 



SIhSPh 



0.0.03 



Tj« ■^ _ o o o 

C-t — < lO ^3 'O 'C 



S>^^ 



OOOOOOi/SOOirJOOOlCOOODCC'LOQOOlOOOOOt^OOOiOOOiXiOO'tOOOOt'-OOOOOfMCJCOSli/S-^ 



3— 'OOr^criCiroOOOCOOt^OO-ft^O^OCO OMOC^^GOfOOCOGOOQOl^OCOOa:»«COGOO»-'^t^t^-JTj«i^t^Qni^ 



— CC f-.C7 t- " 












== cS Q.CJ O 



— 2 p: '» t- r: 

-K "^ " t- 1- t-. 

- -~ ° ^— *; ix to to be 



§ .-J o 



. S !*' 



O =3 ' 






^2 



bnEgS. 



6 »: I 
& Si 

OJ 0)0 

gs:S:s-5 

tC 0) -^ - - 
o to o 



O D a :g J 

^ "^^'3 I? 
* --S i3 .o 5 



M ^ ffi S O s,Z s .^ ^^-^_, « g- 2 * <j 
<SS=^r3a)<3iuoc::ac333£-g2 -!N 

.S^l'i-|r|slii§arg?5~-c^ 



> a o 



00,3 



00 



00 



a -2 

o >.^ 

*~3 O 



'1-5 a, 



^ '-5 c» £ fc 2 _!i -t' a"* S 



1-5 00 



a 

o._; 



005?^ 



„c3— S,>>-- — *'>>sti2 a)' 

■a v= O. :„ « 
X X CO X O 

^- o^'2^a.g2.gs>'Ss=>J=-" -T^S^J3§ 



. f^ Qj ^ ^ Cj _^ el t. ?:i 



to o'_ 

I ^ ^ ^? £, 3 ■? 5 < 



o o o .a o go >.'x x x X 3 ^ a 3 -s; » 

bptotpto.2_g X 0.^^22 aa a S,S=£«^ S'?^ g g § 2: 

5 J § b.a W) S I 
„ ?; .^ .= .= .= oD c3 X '^ SO S? 2 tc.2 -a '5 
® ? >- S -- •- a -S „ X a .a a a i. 



; -=; s < s 'c >; 

03 li 0) ^ ^ 
000.- 

- i (-: £ £ E iS 'S 3 
>Q2Soooo-5-g 

' ^'^ . to 60 iC tl " SS 

iuQ^aaaaaa 



cs 1-5 3 a . _ _, 
•- "3 ~ ~ .;S ,- = 3 




g "5 .S-'O 60 -e 'o -c P3 •« 

M'VmtOt^0001O-<C}«'WmOt^003>OrH(rJM-3>m;0t-QC0>Or-5'»«Tt<lrtt0C-00CT>O-<CJM"J"in«5 1-000>O^(N~3TK 
■.m^^TJ^TJ^^^»r^^nU^lCO^OOlOOO^tCCOy5«0!OCDeOCDCDC^t^C*^-t^t^C^t*t-l^OOOOOOOOQO(XJao000000050S050>05 



15 H E 



226 



CD 

t- .r 
c ra 
■r at 



d S 6 d 6 6 



ODQO 



(tc g^ £^ £ I « ^ 



jcooooirsiooirsioooooc^oOTP^ 



C^ CJCJ 



O C^00tO00C^00C^OO5 (?< 
"— O) ^ lO Ci PO C< CJ t^ 



MaqonoA 
JO -ON 






= _;oo 






t- O: ^ •" 

00 , -S . 



0000's(-5(^O'~' StJ'^ 

•7- .= a<M^ .~-='^f5.-'S'*'caj!t: 






a- aj o 



;3 -g o 

^-. ^^„, ^ a 5.=: -t; S M 

« ^ iJ ^ o -a ^ r -S i S "- ="" = 'S t: = 

osjosiC2»'caSaa -to ^^ 
""S-^^^c:^" g--s -^ ^ -^ .i! .2 



I^SJS bc^aSa a^&g.o.j 



u u 






;gO(yajOonacs^O(i;Pa 



■^Kf.-° 5? ■■^ •- "J 5?aPq * 
I 5 C ^ ^ mS a ^ £ i- >>5 



Oi CS Oi 05 cs o o o o o o o o o o •— ^ « -^ ^ ^ 

r-ii— ir-li-1.-(t-<<-^r-*.— (.— IT— (r-«i-Hr-lrH rH 



. -^ O C^ O O O 

O GO O O -V 

O O OO CJ 
O IQ O lO G^ 



03 -*^ 









a S 






0000. _ . 
1-1 1-1 J~ 00 00 
> .-00 . 



00 00 — t»J- 
rti-i J~QOOO 
^ ^00 — rH 



~ o. ft =s s « 



i-iH>-iO « -S 



, p,p, o, a.o. 






d 


~^ 














>, 




>> 




a 


^ 










« I-5T3 




a 


3 


a 




j: 






.;:I; 


,_, 


7* 


'O 




















i-s 


►^ 


a 


a 


a 



So; 0^ 
aj & fe 



^ .- t; c^ o « i) 

f_. -c a a a a 3 

^. o o o o o 

"5 ?>>>;>?> 



(55 



227 



QO 



£ _ _>.S >.2i2 - .2^52 

7" d d 3 7" d d o d d d d d d d "5 ^ "T d d 6 6 6 6 6— 6 ^'^'^— . d d d d d d d 



■3 B OO'C 



OiSPQ 



d s — d d 

■^^ I C Q 

o '5 

SI 






f-CTOJMO 



-J ^-J '_j ^j ^* c^ :_; i-j . J — J >— J ^ w- 

ocoooooooor-ocjoo 
ooo-s-ooojocooin 



rOL'^iQ cm inoiCCf* cdc;^.-^ — ^ 






— n CJ cc 



a -I 



t^ "" "~ 



— •:: -^"-s 



00'; 



CD 



3 .. p. r'^ — 



C S — p-5 'X ~ - M 



-rt'-s 



03 00 00 

'T-3 '^ 00 ):5 >,ao : 

- a! tT" '^ c^ ^ 













(Ti 



;2^ 



^ >)' 



1 'E a a ■? i 'E I 'E "E a 'E I "E a 'E ^ t 'E 'E I 'E a I 'E ? 'i 'E 



<- <- Q ^ jTs 

•-B "-3 ri 'r- « *-*'i^ 't^'i^ ai „ ^ £1, 



00 00 

>> >>£ 3 K •- 'S.— ^ S — ■ .--3 



o 3-.a 



c^ ; 



-a a--s 



fcO°^ J3 ^ tjj Mit3 t£ 



fcJ3 " 



b c 



S .2 &~ g 5 = - - ^ ^ - 



1" OJ tc 2f 






■-5 a ; 



3d 

o . 

3 S 

SI 1-1 



sag 






; 5S 5 



•^ "o; r5 



^"l • _cd' a a g 
!^ 3 p5 a Q ^ o 

• C Jg ™ o 

C h1 •-S ^^ tS3 S O 



a 

o 
Q 

60 

C5 
a .. 
5 o 






t; o ,-1 ^ j>! ^ "^ •- ;ii ~ '- 
go ■Ks-5^^aS^~ 



JO -ON 



228 



— . ^ o s d c" 66^^^^—,6666'o66'T66666666c'sc.66-.6 



Sw 



SH S 



Ot-a0OO«'OOOOO O— 'L0 000^1(7il-~OCrJOC000000010COOO 



<— Ocr^^-QDOCJ-VOCJt^ OtOlOlOOi^CJ-^t^OU^OOOLOCJOlOOOt- 



_' C^ O -^ CJ — o ■^ 



00 C^ rH r-1 



t^ in r^ -^ rH o ic lo o cs c* -- in 
<N r- IJ (T* « 



^^ S ^- ■ £ 
£|-si-5cA 5 c j> sa S"g 



oT >, 



2 -co i- 



c5 S" ■ 



o n 

5 o C.-S 



^|;S5P 



CD S 

oi W 00 ■'^ 



2£| ■ 

__^- bp Sb - ^- 

2 JS ^ 53 3 



•g o £ "><; 22 -S g aT - 
S>t»^ i-^.S2^-? a 

o a a a-^-^^^^ g g 
oOo.o^ajqaej-.5: 

■^ ■*i '^ ♦J ^ H O o C ?; '^ 

iaall S,| I i if 

a. o a a '^ 5 '? ■> > '> 
5 fc- t-" t- t- ^. 

O 0; C D Oj * 



rtocf 
■^ a i^ 

t t£00 

^ - 1. 

JO? 

a (u s 

a> O !^ 



-J- 

coco -g t. 

g-.a a 
a ^ bjj c 
a =5 a so 



sc 



o 7^ " a -< 
^ « ^ =3 ^ «> 

'T a 1 1 o s 

S aj si -jj a 5, 

^ t: = ■- <; -o 

-S ffl-| I o « 



tH'- 



0^ 



„ *. ^ 'o g » 

2 0) 0) oj 5> a> 

« CJ o V uC ^ 



V^znwviii^m 




= a^ 

-^ -H a 1-^ £ "" ^ 



'ajo -da a 



•jaqonoA 
JO -ON 






,-1 rt rl -H <J» 



229 



£ 2-22 



^ gj c) f2 « 

^O CO £ 00 £ 



>■'» 



00 '» 



a .- ~- 
- -as?} 



.2 a'"" 



* I. .2 

.2 "^ 



00 QO 00 

— .606 



c -a 
o » 



OS 5'3 5'5s 5oos 

"So o^ o£o o-'o 



O 00 'C CO s 

•■:: " ® o « o 
pL. ScagfQ 



to 


^J* 


CO 10 « 
10 (MO 


ot-oo-3o:^oocoo 

Oi =; 'X) ^ ;0 00 


lOOOOOO— 'OXtOOO'rJ'OOOOOOOOOOO 
OOOOOOQOCOOOOO-hOOOOoO— <oc:oo 


§iS 


to 

— . 3 





CI CD 


10 00 10 10 c. M '^ li:) 

t^ -71 Ot CM r-l — ' f^ OJ -H Ci 

^ ^ ^ C^ (- r^ 


OOOlCOOCO^^OinO^OOOOiOOGOOOOiO 


ira in (TJ 

t^ T r-. 


« 




ro 


'"' 







r£"2 

■3 — ^' 

- S '^J, 

c s< ^ 



» - .S '=' 



bo^ if 5d*-'2 
< o -^ < & § 

^ -5 W i4 . .00 572 "■ ° 
.2 >* .2 =c — — 3 5 = -s ^ 

r* ^ S ^ .— .— ,J CC -< CC '^ 

so o 6cii « a> c = 5" cs .^ 
5 6CooOOc>S3;>-' 

'> -g '? '> g Q '? > ;g ^ ^ 
SouSS3j5;a;»c3<B 



— GO 
00 ., 



ao'^^S'^ 



-^ J22 

^'2.S-S^"-5£i S fe- 

<" si' §"2 g'^ Si; MS u°;~s4 



S_;o3;= . 

TiO bjj^ M-5 J ^ M 3 ^_- O.'S.'p ^ 



J ? D a 



^ ^ x" V" rr' • - 0^ i O .3: O 30 W -r-' ^ ^ 



^ S 3 .0 

^- 61) =■ xi? a - ^ tr - - 

■-^ - -A lii = iS ; -r " a c ~ S -2 H 2 ~ ~ •« i- ~ ■- n s 

. iai Ji .2 a, c g W) £ . fcJ)^ <D _i 

_ .. „:■:!!.:!.: ::s6? 

bo b § o ^0 b a a ^ 



c-S 



to 



tr sfi-2 -• &C fcE 

S cs ^ 5 cs a < o: 23 



>t;>-a ■•=>-«> 



- - 2^ 0.2.2 °.« 



C a 



"^ S" -^ a £ 
go2goSo5;»pj!z:'euPH»;o!3iXt»KooccO!»a;a3«!/3 



t-,= a 

Hi 

c6 S > 

a gjs; 

M 2 » 



> > a 



«l^.a 

o o 55 -a 

^l5 di 2 
- "^ be a 

I'd oK 



0) fr^ ? — 

>> : bc^: 2 n 

CS cS ^ •; . . — bjD 



o 

a'5 -t: S — ; 



.§t;a- 



as*^ S 2 « 



o « g 



aji-jf^. 



Qrt.a fHffiS 



ta icodiHi^ai in'^*? i-ji-j-/2 44'-5'-jH id^^S 



S-O iS 



W jg -g cs 5 S -I 

E^ 3 ?1 o sa 

'^ i i' -o o 



!^ ; 






a^qfe 
«S o 



i-hCjco-^ incot^nnjso— 'Cflw^w^ cor^oooio — ciM-^ocot^oooiO— '(wco^riccor^ooci o — ci 



OJOjSltNO)(M(7<(>J<rJCJC1COMroM«COnc»5« 



r- <N<r» 



230 



^a 



00 00^ — <» CO 

odd— .c—^'^'— ocd.— — c-J— .< 
c •- •- ^ -S a 
o 0' aj«^ "^ o 



00 00 OC ~ 00 
^- — ^- in — . 

o o d — . c . 

Q Q Q I r>a _ 



" C) " « 
(^ r^ t^ r^ 

00 00 00 00 

^^^.666666666666 

OJ o ^ o 



« g 



OOOiCOOLOlC- 



c^iraoooco— I ooo ^o(^JL^oooooooo^-'-lOOO^-— ' 






« C* f-i »0 TJ« c^ «o 00 



' — t^lCOt^OO OOCJO 



rt CO ^ r-i — tri iO 



g = cccc 
E "s! " o 

ffl » 2 — ' 
=«= bi^ 

trj<! -"^ S n t» ~ 
5 .a J or ■;;' ""J ^'7 2 

•i > ?"= g _; = 5 ■< 

■^ 1. 5 > 5)£ "^ s 2 

J .2 ° ° .9 -2 •- o ^ 
£: £ = a o 5 n."5 % 

OB M K K M ?< K iK rc 



' 1^ s 00" 



5C O 

fcc bo 

00 '-3 ii 

s a = 

^ be C8 
^ '> S. 

too .2 



m 5 J-- 



oi a ^ 



p p 
-."a 3 



a g f 
S5 o 
up 



o Z ^ 

P-'r. o 

5 J2 & 

=- a <u 



2 of-^ 



00 



00 



t- — 1 1- 

00 t^ 00 „ _ 

"2""- '7i^ - ; ; ct--2 

^Ti£i^2i^Sia£22 Ca.;:: 



s a s 



r'E-S »■. 



* ^ S ij 



- -- ,„ c cT s^on -2 "a ^ -S ■= S • 



2 Q.c..Sa3 „-; 



?i.«rf>"£-|'|l"- 






«!*a= a'-fcfi»5>- 5S :s S .;:: -a 



So. 



* t«^J '-J iJ -s I J S^K -5 = » Z M g 



c 2 

T^ S ^ be bcjs » o bo a bo^ « be bo - a 2* 
>> g.^ anoSoJcSaK;z;ssapqS 

gbDjiooPO^SciMbooiStog 

il S'E'E'E c s's'E'E-sl'E'E'EI^ 

asaiOccas.7:«35&.aj!»PLi&,i»x;i»rtS 



•jaqonoA 
JO -ON 









is 

. a o 
P3H!» 



a t. 






Baa 
csco S 



•^Q £ 



.25 o 0^ — 






:;^ 



o ^ 
o p.SP 

sll ^S-n ^^'^^ «^ 
^ § «Bw»^fl^ g a p^ 



o c 






002 (i, 






C^-'^'WCt-'ODClO— t 



< irt «3 t^ 00 O) O — I 



^TT'^'^'^'^'^ioiri oirjoioiooo oto'o 



f-l©JCO^OC£t^'X)OlO'— '(NCO^OCCt^X 



2.^1 






ci oi ci 5J c» ^ o ci g^ 

00 00 .oooooo 2"°o "^ 

- a noa^a at-a -S 

3 3 s'P s'O s a°03 ''3 



o«- o » - 



H S 



'^ C^ f^ 

oo^gao 



00 00 00 00 c 00 00 



— d^— ddddds^,— .ooooo'**o_-,oo 

gQ^g >^aQaoQ'7g-bgciOQOQ|'-;-^a g:=iQ- 



® o 1; o 






at~ a .- 



oooira — LOW otDo- 



-^r o in o lo o o 



lOOOCDTOOCO OQ0O"^<N — *0f7?00010 



— ' C* TJ Qi ^ ^^ to 



^ r: (M 



^QOTt^'-OOtCOOO. 
CJ t~ t~ CO O --H -; 



) a; o o o 00 o -^ ' 

HOOOO-rflOOOlOOOO^ 

O O CO c* t- t-* .- — >^ 

CO C^ CO — ' r 



)C*t— U0»0rji»0^t^ 



o o o o o m 



•00 00 
•O" u 

* a_:-9= a 

I- ^ ^ o-^ a 



a 3 X gj3 ^^ to 

^ "^ o* iii, a tjo ^ 

i- J3 ?, g be so o 

^ a "CO » 1o £ 
» iU ^ ^ o o » 
H « S S Ph 3h aj 



a to 

a 3 



2So 



•S - t- - .- •■ 

a53^ooS-:2o2aJ<: 



00 ■" fc, — . — ^ • 

r^ CO o t^ Qo-^- a 



g ^ CC» rt 

P5 .2 ^ bo S, 

■S 3 S = S 



111 ^ f C3 2h 



S*-^ a 
;»as 



I'^i 



c S--2 i 

•^ rx -^ ►:r 
O) .^ OJ - 

a) ^ X ^ 
03.0 a 






£3 






C3 c o o '^ '' ^ 
5^ j3 -o .a M bct^ 

bo" — ' -J - — •" 



o c^ cc "^ " 



B- P — 03 to.- bo bo 



_, © o 

o o g I £ 
I- ^ bo'So" 
5 2^ .- §3 
O a §§2 

O 



£a 



fcTP. . 
a> oj „ - . 
joajf^ - 
o _oo •- 

S £?2^ 
- a c> -X 

•5,-5 O 33 



O J 3 



O a O. 33 



« bo be 

§■3 g-g &:g^ |-a-3 
•^-Ss-sspoSp^'SboSS 

g.J:g^SbD=2Sifo-so22 
,S -3 .2 p 'r* ^ ^_ "r^ " +j S "" *IC ^ 
■o a« §£;'So£;»a"oc£ 

^ai55So3So<2*oS5J 



g' o « "2 2 

o J>^ bo o CO 

O S O CS C3 

* 55 * a 1^ 

^ ii ^ OP 3> 

.2 bo S bo bo 

J cS T n C3 

+j a; J* (D aj 

o :a S ~ ~ 



bo". 

f>. bo oj ^- c3 



; uo.a 



bo- 



bo 



■ J= a 



a -.o a ^ •- - 

» S 03 t- 2 '.n 

bo ^ *- ^ o o 

™ w bo =^ O ^ 



o oi ® a; o aj 

rr> .-/^ ^ r/1 ft . r/^ 



oSmSS !» ao 55 i» Oj 03 



O 

•a : ■ D.:? 

2 a 73 -rt ^ 



^11 



5 til 



S.2 < 






3 03 

*■ -a r^B a 
. S 3 s: 2 — .; 

1^ a a: ? s fe ^ 



d 

d _ 

•S a a 5s S) 



■^^ 






aOn 



Ma; 

cs a n S a 






° " s «•§ 
S a & 3 
? ~ o $ 






a^ 

a 3 



q; 



2gg 

-^ O) 



PhH 



w s 



O-^QaiHO^H^^ 



-<fe:. 



:d^ 



•2 .S 



Oi O — 1 CJ ^7 "T LO 



' (^J CO ^ 10 CO t* 



^OJQj(NC)<:<c< (rio»<>»<?Jco coeocococscoco 



^cico^in=ot^oocr=0;-j^.co^22S2S§ S§I??S^:5§ 



-o- 



. r^i 



CI t^ 

CO '- 



f^ OC L'^ 

CO '- CI 

t-. a 
= >> 



•«& 



i 00 



Sk 



C( cj Ci c» 0( ci cj c> r-£icj S; 

OOCOOOOD ODOOOCQO >i^ 00 ^2 

^ d. d _ 6 "T d o" d d d d d o d d c d _ 6 7' o _ . d d S _ 'T o o d _ d 



a c ® o 
S P3 S M 



S B Sm 



CSk 



OL-^OTJ-inOOOOXOO— 'OOOOOO-^t^OrJ-OOOt-^OOTO'-OO — oo 



oo 



OCI-^CICJOOOO-^OOlOOOOOOOOOC^OCiOO-VCOOO^^lOOOQOO 



in -w o -^ -^ ' 



i~ Ol -3" UO i~ c» o ■^ 

r^ r-. .-. CT rH 



' O ^ O ~ C^ I 



^OLOL^r;:rcor:»c:^Olr5 — t^ocooo-T- 



) — 1 1- Ci c< c) -^ 1- c: ciio OJ o c< n c-mo o « f^ cj 



~ oo 

O <o 
OO 3 



•si 



^-1 

"o GO 



-00^- ■£= 

^ t ^ - S ^- 

- ^ o - 






J2 -2 00 



^ « J- - 2 «^ . -J. CO >* M '^ r 






oo^-oo 
" 00 — — ■ 



O 1- S , 



S 5 f^>: "^ _, S ^ ^ ** S 

r - o 2 




■> S £ > I § > § I "S J ■> I 'F = S § 

•c3b^S5oajotcEo5<i>o<5<»5i;oSd— <L,^da^sSdSS«^ 



^ >» 



.9. 2* 



• ■ > c 






So 

'm;3 



5 >. 

■533 
d J 



to r ■►^ -9 _I^ ^ 






pa fe 



:iJ-g. 









•jeqonoA 
JO -OK 



wHCico'^ocot^Gocno^CJco^iri'ct^ooaso^cJCO'3'LOcof^ooo^o— 'Cico-jo 



00 



00 



ci of 2J ci pj ci 



00 



00 



'X> 



ioo 



00 



ooo^-.oooooo 



o o o — 



000000000_00.M— ■ 



^ :3 a a"" a ~ fi --a -^ S5i;s 

s "^ 3 3 -3 "O 3 "C s 'g 3^2.^ 

B3 g pqcqpqSp5 gpq gpqS 



^O 



d d d d's d_^ 



iooi.oaiOOooo:c=>orQ»o to— «oconooQoooaoo--Hiror-^c^cfiooooco 






'^oo-^o — t7»c5Gooocor-05^(»omoOQO 



f-i rt O 'J' 






o o o o r~ o CO o 

O O lO o ^ (~- 00 ^ 

in LO CI o « cc o o 



• 00 a 

£^2 



So a-gjijg ao'2 






"S si-' o 

M 5 W > to 
■2 to ;; „ •- 



O 3 o 



60^ 



o-s 



- o -_, £ g 



£ =S 3 

M <; .5 -5 S ^ S =* 

S 3 '^o '^•^ ^S 
■S -5 -S ° .3 tao 2 ^ 
■ ' > oj t. a a t, 
> > 2 g'rt -S .2 a 



•§^ :&o 

o - '^te 

•" a _• o 22 ^ . 

11 "oort tr°°'^ 

M H ^ ^ oj'"' ' 

tX) 0) ^ rt O J3 

< > g ^-o 2 

n3 +- *; g cd -- 

§^'£-^-? 3 
S^f a >"- 

o^;';; =«« ?- 

® o « S <P 4J 
60 tp-n S ;tl'^^ 



00 l*!^ S 
-< O fc. ^ 

O t- ^-3 
■►- ts a 
a a . ■ =3 

aa«s 

■So- 

-00 0) .ri > O 
; - Q .a, .2 g 

j -S 'fe ^ 3 '§ 
;l|22g. 

<0 a a> iB'O 
! s 3 o O OJ 
'••3 t a a -^ 
' o a ^ "3 I; 



00^ ^;:h 
<1^ — ^ 

■ffesa 

a ^ oj 33 
■S o a > 
a.*t (i> '^ 

t^ t. a a 

3 »i- g 

° ° s S 

to bc^ ^ 

.S .3 a a 

^ ^- "t:; ^ 
3 3 .2 .2 

^■^ M 60 

'S'T! a a 



•s-s-a-a-asS' 



00 00 ^ 



ac fe' 
S S .o 
-^ ^ o 
§•0-5 
odZo 



cj c3 a 

aa a 



53 c3 c: 
333 

c c" o" 



;i;'5 



O cJ 60 60 



JfoouooSStBc 



j= o ,- a 

> " a o 
o a a;z; 



p '-a 
r r ao -— ^ 






Pi< 



:■= s 



^ 7| ^ ^ J- 



»^|S^ 



C C a 



-" - ^ o 



Si:*;' 
- a a. 2 

60.-S s c5 a. 

=" 0.' ° ° — 

■^ iS a a •- 
C'S CO ca-a 






5i^ 



>:= a S ^ 
3 S^O 3^ 



_5 60^ 
3 o< 



PhE-> 



a . 



•ys. 



a -^ S 



'S'a-S 



fe2 



■|ili 



— cs a i- 
■ aj3 3 



r 1 a 0) 
" <; 60 >-. 

03 ce a 



C3 o 

•a gS 
.■a ?* c!j:> 






< Ci CO TjilO CO t* 00 



234 



>.22 "^ 



t^ t^ t^ l^ 

OD JO 00 £ 



.ooooop^ .ooooooooooooooo_-o — ira_^ oo_oooocoo. 
-baOQQP'^^ ^qQOQQQQOQQOQQOQgQgccg>>QpgQQQQC;aQ^ 
a I. a a ~ ^ m .x a •- a 

a oaa 'C'O^OTSa'^ a 

o "C o o » £^i2 = i2 ° 



ooooooooi.';oinooooooo'*oooiooiocoo( 



in c: >c ic tc o m 
i^ c*^ c* CI '7^ ■ 



^OOt-OOOOOU^OCJOOOr 



inOOOODOLO.TitOOX'-^: 

COOOOOUCOOO^OOi^Ol 



- — -T' r* uj 03 uu »^ ^ t^ ^^ ■ — ^^ -^ — ^ ^ 
•^05 COl^COrHOO — f-HC^OCO'Ti-HO 




o . 



613 a tuS ct, n K a 5" W)-- a tm to M Sf) bo to oj i2ma"3caur"^M 
«*;c4oSg-ga3ca>.gs=8c3ancego5ncQ^Os ^ 

S Is SSES o S-s I » |.g II III g,!^ g » g,|-3 || 



> 3 !* >■ 



O > a '5 "" 

3 O tD to ■/; 



^ •? t; ""- £ ^ r^ . - 



c5a)^^aS^SoS 



fl n fi 5 ^ -5 ^ 3 
I. '3 ^ > -^ ^ a Z; 

ill II III 

Q. a n. iw o 2.'3 ^ 



aDHaaoolS^faiaSccCLiMfaiyjwccaoMfiHtBpHWPLiOHpLiS^O wWSSccooMKfazjcSs^M 



•jeqonoA 
JO -OK 






) & o 

ji^H D.a 



i a^--3 












^i-oM ~:'5 a 






11 

_- a 



si • ^ 



«1^ 



£ a a ' S - 
r^ sCt o Sea 






:a o 

^ c — ^ 
; a.g 7 a^q 

pi; (3 H H 4 M 2 






235 



ODQO 

." a 
© o 



gj ci 






00 



S C5 SfiHSp3S pq S 



CO X 






'QQ 



Sm fti ca 



0666^^ — 6.6 6 ^-4 , d d dodo 

■-^■Go g-?gQ^aQ^^.•^aaaaao 

S^ o 
« fq 



>^ O =" o 



00 IQ OOOO^LOOOOC^O— I 

r~ct~ ooior:ociooooooo 

■.oc*^-a''oio-^oot^aoc 
(?< cr^ c« c^ ira o o c^ t^ '' 



> 5C O 

- - . — ^ o 
Ci c? rs to 



OCJOOLOOOOO-^OOC^ClOOr^ — 00 TJ^OOlOO 



Ci o Ci o -^ »c in Ci o — t to o Ci 'xj 



00 o o r^ o -r o 



— O ^ Ci r^ t- 



O O C! O 00 

not owio— t~;o 



00 00 



S S S 



5 J: g 



00 t« r^ 

n^22 

(Co" 



.a ^ *0 


1?^ 


.■^-j 


z^ 


^fi^ 


£i= 






^llg 


Uq 






a a j 

■•S-£ a 
00 g 

a a^i 

fajj be oi 
CC CO S 

o o o 






00" 


1 


a 

1-5 


a 




2 




JO 

s 




a 




JO 






g 


— 


■3. 


>> 




a! 


Q 


Q 


'0. 





K 


►? 




a 




&4 


■3.=S 


^ 


5 




s 


-s 






" a a a ?: £; £; 

a » 0) Oj 0, ai 5 



J S 

t~ t^ ^ O 

'^ o.— o 

,-0 .Ci 

^ 2; o 

a-" -5-° 

g ^ g o 

o S £0 

-t^ *" -^ 5< 
o- ca'H, o 
d a o,j3 

[jj 3i_" a 
§ £ «S 

T > I i 



roi 



Q-s; 



ojoo g 






t;t-' 



2ao 

" T" s 3 

«5 a 



S:igS"a^_Q 
-_< a g -g S ^ r 

S-g J2 S^"? a 
^i — ^ o ii-a — 
•^.a^oogg^^^g 

O. fcr,-^ "t^ 1i Kr, ^ ^ :C Kr 



53*0 
.0 -a 



SS 






S i; « a 
a i-S^. 



T3Q(j 00 

a " " . ^ 

^ UiO^ o 

I. i.ci .;z - 
-2 a 0) — r 



o > ^^' 5 S '^ 



o o 00 '^ ja 

rag" 



a^ Saii 
a M « o 



St4 

= .11^1 
= S-=-§a 

■ be O 






g S Sjg-g-S £ o 

s > •?, s a > 'F -s 



.2 « .2 J 



sp £ 



: ^ a te J - 

= ■3 -sis, 



»tDd>-,-(LS<5a)p<i>S«Ji=JSct.ao 



0) ^ " — . o 
r^ a ■- ^ 00 "^ 

"^ " g L-5 ■^ ^ 
"a J^Q-O'^ ^ 

=" ■> 0:02 . >. 
5,'"' g - 1- a 

||3||| 

" S* S 9 ? 

be o o iJJiJ bo 

« -r -ti _, _, « 

"S C a « ® m 

O 5:; IE 3 3 o 

PLii/ja;p:^fe PL, 



•a H 
Sg 

Sg 

O 3 

.£ 

O C3 o 
S5nO 

dirj>-j 



o go 
<D a , 

c54fa 



be 35 



-< £•§.■§-§' 



^B 



'^ 'a .a Ph 









oj o oSwS.Jf" 



o ,a 
;^ ^ J '-' o ^ r,^ »=H i^ , 
;? >,-a ^ -a u <; • „ -^ 



SO 

sa 



•SK o 



a S 






Q 



n > « 
? C^ H 






- ^ to 



co'^otoi^oooo — cicr:- 



toioio iOioovriirjiOi/^coco'-ato'jo tatoto'o 



-HCir:-^mcot^ooojO"Ci«T}*it^cot^oocno ^cicc-^oco 

^--rtrtrHt-lrHrt — ^Ci CiCiCiCJUCI 



236 



^^ t^ c^ 

00 Q0(» 



^ooococcooood— ^— Oe. 

a .s a .« t; a 

a 'o a '^ 2 a 

o « o ^ "C o 



00000—0^—000000.0 

ofifiQogQi'gaaaoQol^q 

"S a "O a 

»; c j; o 



gf 7) — c> 

O0o0_>i30 

.^ c 1- a 



oc^oocDooooocoooomoooo oot^ort— icoioi^irsL'^iO'-rooooooioo 



OtWOOOOOOOOOOOOCQ 






ioir5»C'«rc?j 010 oc^>— <rHt^TrC7rt< cico f-« cot-«GD-Hpocoo-HF-t'^t-*-£;Trt-HC^Trt- 






a;a-a:o QK^^g 
a a 

O c« 



■•Q£ 



S SiJ-3. 



be a 



s > J £3 S 



--Q 



S - g 5 _; a 



CO o 



— 00 

i~- "• — 



■ aos^t.a^aa'^ 

.ti>+j»j*ia).tJa-.i-^o. 
aj3aaa5>>»aaa-?: 

bccSMbCtitlSfflOM sc^ ^ 

SboooSo^tuSStoo 

■> 5 ■> ■? '>'>■% B '> ■>£■>- 



•o Q^ . 
. 5? t»a 



=-^ 



g a"x! g 'S 

s^t^iQSo 

. -a >.t- a 
a a ,Cicc 5 
00 r fii — ^ 
a a >. - . a 
cs « >^ a — ' ^ 






o^S-S 

in .- - <iJ 
<r5 t; ■- " 

, S I* ® 

;- -O ^ ^ 



o (^f 
j= .a .2 » iS >H £ 
^ 3 5"a S fe . 

" g a; tni5 a .>^ 
^ c3 o) 5 '^ ai ^ 

lUtHi 



.2^' 



^ aj ^- a oj i: 

tc to o) d, «; IJ 

> > -s, "S -2 



J2 g 

oag2z-i5 

M' o > _— i; -3 a 
°*'02fS=-oS 

•r . a a s C-c ^r 

a ^ c ^ « 'C . "^ 



ceao 



^ o 

oG§Q 

b-° 

1-5 o a 
J ■ > 

>i-3 O 



a S^^ 
a4 == 
rtS a 









S2 g 1^ 



3-r: 



, >> tao 



t^ jjs a *- a 

- . - S a a'-o S, 

o sc Mi 3 .a ui'*-' M 

. f- 03 Cd —i '-'-' C3 !K W 



3«aDHSai<S 



wx^a p^x 



g o 3 • 

-;^^L5iS5o^aja.i, ^^ 



; o b .- 



JaJJ aS 



jj a s a "^ 

,a S ^ cj "a ^ 3 2 
n '> '? -a 5 -s — > 




^»oinmo»oOiomioiOso;D«ccco;DCc«: 



237 



?»£?<" 5? «« 



00^ 

6 6 o o ^ 3 



OO 00 .00 






SS s 






CO — 

c — •a 



OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO— , 



OOlO— OO o— <-^ 



oiO'^oioin TPQoo 



mo 



t- o 

-J. to 
ri' — " 



o o CO o O CO 



mooooooo^ooooooooir:oooooo~c?oo 

OOOOOOOtOOOOOOOOOC^OOOOOOOOiOOO 

i^oioo»nioo(>ioooicoooomooiococooor^-^03 



(?^ixt^^ c^o^o r-'^TTO — c^-<r iOiCTC^occcoio ocot^ 



sic:- 



■ 3 



00 ^- 



b5 



:'-»> 



->.3 

ri 3 g 
&< 5 r 

? "I 

^ « ^ =i -^ .2 

teg /_ !»_ 

O O .O fciC ?< C3 * 

> « - 5 •> ■- 1- 
E; a a; -5 r; -o 00 



Sot, 

S " 5, 
c as 

"Sol 



.•Q 






s m (~ 
a?; 00 

1-1 

g§4 
t- a ^ 



> S 3 



- (N - 



00^ 



i 4 1 «' 

; - >>Z 



5 bb 

S3 C3 :3 
O 3 3 

a = .2 
"^ a 3 



||i 



s S 






1^ ?- >> 

GO 00 S- 

Tlbisic, 

>,'^ •>: .- g cs ^'^-.S ;| a J 

p-d ._:s t. .a J^ I. 3 &- 

^|-'aga="^'^a^'^ 
^ai^i-S^-Sil ag 

SxaoapqcsMClocss 
'? > a 'E I 'E 'i t a t a 



g?j2 






" >-, • -'00 OO • 

•- 3 £ 2 p; >.£ _ 0, 

'2g 



- _ r 5 « i_ o" ■ 
2 a 3^^^ S"' 

H - n -XJ t- 



rigs 5 



iS a « 3 

2 3-5-' r^'Q -S ( 



3;! 3~E-';^Q-so 
.2 g-pi o. -A-.o o ~ - 

^ s i S S ^ S ^ S 

ggs^slf^g 

S) Mlii^ CD 'pus 2 



-5 >> ■- 

^' S 3 

<il 

s aT a 

S^ '^ a^ 
-2 r c- cj 

Kt=b 

■s ?3 > 3 



3 C' 



>-3aj .2-2i^ a>.i3a'a>ci^a)Oaja'iJ^ai'i)Q;^o 



Ht»: 



do* 



S C3 



l^t 






o a 

a 3 

S SO 

05 S ■ 



111 



^» O 

I'M 
■ • a • 
; g S S 



at-' 



■e-o H 



.2'-*i4 



cOa .ij ■'►^ -,.«:«« «!»0 ,rn 
* -13 "b;'*" ^ -^ ■ ■ f 



on 



3 a. S*a 



fc 3 



o §) 5 a i 
~ =3 o 2-3 



•=^ ? 3 
■r c3 



io-i 



0-5 



te ►^ C3 >-; Eh 



03 as o — ' (?j CO -^ lo !o t- 00 
Qo CD t^ t- 1^ t^ t^ c^ r* c^ t>. 



-Hcin fHCico •3'Oc£>t^ooa50wcJCOTj*io<c«^ooaiowCTco-^o«ot^ooo50 

1- r-( iH — I rH i-l rt rH r- r- <N (N OJ (JJ C^ (TJ <N (N <^< OJ CO 



238 



5jci ^< cifj I 

00 So S ^'2 ' 

— 7* o 6 d d o o d — d 6 — d d 

^ a .- a - 

Sea 



en 00 



a ;3 

II 



>1o. 



ea S «S 



— oo^o^oooooooooo 
gOQ ^-010000000000 

" o ^ 



;OOU*30000000000000CO ClOlOO 



cocjocoof^J'-iasiC'^'S'Oofoipooop 



rH ,- — . rl 



ooo^ioiooooo»oooa;oO'-' 

(MOO.-H00-^00l0^tCOOC0CT"-OCi 
t^l00000MlCO00OC00J»^C^l-'^O»0 

in -^j- 00 « i-c -5. c^ r-. rtt~foc<cooj 



2 2 



O — ' 



00 : s - ^ 

E2g§^g2S 






sfesidlb|c"ill| 



5 "C ■= Z<S'B'S 



- ?«c ^-S :. £P2 cO £ « g 5 
o ;~ tsiS, a « ^ = to-^ 4< ■* 35 u 

:n £ £ tJD iao in s X =ii >i •- &, " 



00 

o» ~. 

t~ 00 

00 c< 

"^ >> 
^5 • 
5 -f~ 

3 ^ OD 

*- a >> 
a a b 

CJ cj cc 

SH ? 

1 '^0^2 
^ = & iz; >> 

£ -^x a 5 

^ * ce a 3 
■S fa a £a 

£3 „ C *" « 

S_ c3 li I 1-5 

f 1-^ N 

2 c = « *; 






oi * o :?, ^ 



aj a. i. sj 



» s £: s ? 



03 o . 
g : <^ < P3 H a = ^. K ? 5 PC H I 

4 :fa>-ji-;>-;«a,^^^a;d-;ia 



r^^g 



= i; a 5 5 r^i '^ ,_■ 

^ -S fa h » - ^-t: j^-S 
?^a95;.5o-So£^<r>S3cs 

fa t. S cs a ii -r,,^ fa ti. -^ - ^•'^ 



« fa a 
fa'o 9 
_ a^ 

ca >^£ 

h»5 



■ O -T 

„, ^-^ a =-S tifa 

S ci a — -c ■ ~ 

- S o --r ?! a ^ s •= ^ •> -c p~ 



Caj = 5' 



C3 >. 

bog iS a i; ; 
S a~ 






^'=r.^2'='ac^^^3-^p 

g U) o o 9 > ap a 
'S K a £; 



.2 g «•= 3 .H a -H too -J ^ 
2 r^ rh 5! r"i r^ &L. S fii I 



j-p g > 



- S e o s a — 



:<S 



1-2 
l-jl-j 



o 5 ,^ J o 

^ '^ I -^ "&^ X fa =y '5 z M 

•gio:> rt j5 o >; >cs^.a 
SfSoH^SOSiSaJoSfa 



JO -ON 






rHCiCT^flO^f^ODC^Or-lCJC^-^OO 






>-0 OOqo 



o o ^-^^ 



>OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC— ^OOO-hOk^^.^. =.^i 

So S S3 P3 SB5 



1 2 Q ^:i g 

© o «J 
S P3 S 



CJlftO^OOOOOOOOtOOr--00'eJ'lOOOOOOC;OOlOt^OOt-- oooooooooooc^ 
©ICJO'^L'5 0lOOOCOOt^=?OOOOh*COC3 0L'5 0C^OOC<OOOi:0 OOCOOOOOOOOQO 

O i- TTi— <L-3(HrH t-.,-.n' lOlCCi OCQ<— I O CD CClOOO C^-^WlfOTjiC^ r-Hr*Tr<— .JO 



^ O O 



CO >i 



; Ja tec 






,t-- 



.00 



: « 









.•g"'-' CD 






oooq 



CJ 



^ £? ., Coo 



- o S ji; _S ^ li, 



OQO 

00 - •S 









iS-g 



gs 



" g- rj ^- S CO _^ 1^ 






li^lrt^^^Wt'^^^^'-'' 



— „ t^i 






.2 -=.2 






■§ * I -S M ^ O I ^ 

■r* .*i 'r* . -r" cfl -r* ^ T T" ^ ^ 'r* *i > tX T ^ +j 'S 



:-5 a 



o o , -=■ 







12 •' ?- ^"f* 

• „-(m2 £SSg^ 

j-TS -a « ^- OJ I» — 00 ." 

o : ^ S .S g ^ jq ^. c" 4 

^-^^ r.2^'t^Ss Sf^S 
'^ cu t^^ bo - <^ ^ ~ 

jaCcficsBStoauKo- 
a)©aJ3J©*5'.'-'©aJCj^ 

■? > ■> ■> 'p -g s ■? ■_> ■> -g ' 



S — 3 

§-s-a 



=0 a.o 



S'3 -^ 

a; 0) ai 



t^QCCiO — <MCO'*mcct--ooaso— 'OJC'jTriocct-GOdo — f7^«"*o«ot^QO oio-^G^w-wiocot^aoc^o 



.-Hi-H^c*(N«<?j(?JC<(NCTi:N(?*cococococ^coc^rtc^cQ'«i'^-^^-^"<r'' 



ioioo»noiooLomir;t 



^ ^ c^ 



240 



o ® 






C . _ O 



5» c» <r» C! 

00 00 00 00 



00 OD 



oddd— . d— ic' dddddddd— .^ cc'^oooco^cc^o 



S fqS bS 



.OOOO— -O— .c^ oooooooo — 

ff 'c -- -5 s '5 5 

c ii o «; o o o 

pq Sn S m Ssi 



' c d o d d d d d c c d o 



oor;ooc<^£^oot- = iraoomtDoooo50ooiraioc5nictbcjO£-ooo3r»aj— .mira-i = o 
g'''''^cit^03c;70ioo*iotccjirair5C20C':-»'Ooot^C}!Cr^[~3'. r~cc30i.otom-»(;if~!?f^oo 

■W;*- CJ »0 r-H 1— I CI r-* 00 t— t t?* r— 



goo 



s «s ••s - 



■« S:oo 

— r -^ ct — 

— ''J .t~ _ 
■r; in OQ u5 

p. •£---- 

•< r-( ~ 10 — 

" s ^ s*— s. 

^ - t. ^ -r- ^ 



." n: -= L <; P 






cS c3 g Tf^ 0-_ p. 



a«too o 

tu s >rt CJ 







z. c-si „-txtCjjbCca>«'*P22*'i35P* 




,00 



■ . 00 p 



If^ C r— 



(N ■"" -H *^ * P. 

£ ?;:= ;I.f S< 
-r -p" 



>>.5 



ic io 



IScc|iip:ccfeccpHpL(Sco(ifciPL(fH!>2Mtf;»o2WC^a5ii&Ha3(Xic»ccH 






'^ I p » u * OJ 

1 B t. D X S » 
^ ^ 1 .2 ? .H .2 

-£ i; .S •' c. > r* 
o a; ^ S ^ S 3 
!l< H O i» B 30 M 



tcja 
t'lg — -Sf 

S C p * 
.Sap 

p bo-S o »« i^ S 



p .a 



« o".^ 



o 

W p^S|-.o 
• 5 t a S a p 



1^ 



"^|S|Ss|:^SoOo«Oo|y|«o«=2'^°£-<-S^=|oooo 



o I. o a o y •• 






: so 



C- .£ . ~ „■ ^ -< &^ ^ 5 ^ . '° < 






g=t>a 

Q<" ^ A^ ►^' 



•wqanoA 
JO -ojsi 






«t-i c* 



257 

WASHiNaTON, December 31, 1873. 
Hon. Allan Eutherfoed, 

Third Auditor, United States Treasury : 
Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith, for settlement, a supple- 
mentary account-current for October, 1871, refugees and freedmen's 
fund. When I was relieved as disbursing officer, October 11, 1871, 1 left 
the original vouchers, of which these are duplicates, with my successor, 
General O. O. Howard, for him 'to forward to you. 1 find, on inquiry, 
that he has not done so. 
Very respectfully, 

GEO. W. B ALLOCS, 
Late Chief Dish. Officer Bu. R., F. and A. L. 



Exhibit W. 

[Refugees and Freedmeu's funds.] 

Suiyiilementary accouyit-current by Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief 
disbursing officer, October, 1871. 

Treasury Department, 

Third Auditor's Office, 

A])ril 10, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of supplementary account- 
current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief 
disbursing officer Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWEE, 

Acting Auditor. 



Account-current of moneys receired and expended on account of fund derived from investment 
in bonds by Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Eefugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



Date. 




Amount. 


Date. 




Amount. 


1870. 






1870. 






June 1 


To six months' interest on 
currency sixes. 


|8, 991 86 


Feb. 1 


By premium on 1300,000 
currency sixes, at 11^-. 


§34, 500 00 


Dec. 31 


do 


9, 000 GO 


Feb. 1 


By brokerage, one-eighth. . 
By express charges 


375 00 


1871. 




Feb. 1 


150 00 


Feb. 11 


To interest and premium 


38, 021 91 


Feb. 1 


By accrued interest 


1. 542 20 




on bonds when sold. 




Sept. 12 

1871. 


By George W. Balloch, (1,) 
reimbursement. 


1, 338 56 








Jan. 14 


By A. R. Shepherd & Bro., 
(2,) heating-apparatus. 


IG, 652 25 








Mar. 6 


By J. T.Watson, (3,) agent. 


500 00 








May 1 


By C. C. Wilson, (■(,) clerk. 


116 67 








May C 


By J. L. Wilson, (5,) agent. 


133 33 








June 5 


ByH. C. Percy, (6,) sta- 
tionery, &c. 


44 61 








June 5 


By Charlas W. Keys, (7,) 
printing. 


61 15 








June 30 


By W. L. Vanderlip, (8.) 


600 00 




Total 






agent. 

Total 






56, 01.3 77 


56, 013 77 











I certify that the above account exhibits a true statement of moneys received and 
expended on account of funds above described. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chf, Disb. Officer Bu. E., F. and A. L. 
17 H E 



258 
Exhibit O*". 

[Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu aud Abaudoned Lands.] 

Voucher No. 1. — Abstract of expenditures. 

October, 1871. Geo. W. Balloch $1, 338 56 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

Aiwil IG, 1874. 

1 certify that the withiu is a true copy of voucher 1, supplementary 
account-current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing oflicer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abaudoned 
Lands, on tile in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

TJie United States to George TV. Balloch, Dr. 
1870. 
Sept. 12. For re-imbursements of moneys paid to the wrong bounty-claimants 
by myself aud ageuts in the following cases since May 1, 1867 : 

Miles H. Jordan, Company H, Thirty-Sixth Colored Troops $86 .50 

*Samuel Griffin, Company D, Third Heavy Artillery 168 88 

Jackson Bnne, Company E, Thirty-Fifth Colored Troops 228 00 

Arthur Goings, Company A, Twenty-Third Colored Troops 204 80 

Isaac Richey, Company G, Forty-Eighth Coloi'ed troops 264 38 

Sanders Nicholas, Company B, Sixth Heavy Artillery 286 00 

Isaac W. Watkins, Company A, Fourth Colored Troops 100 00 

(Thirteen hundred and thirty-eight T^fo dollars) 1, 338 56 

I certify on honor that the above account is correct and just ; that the 
amounts were paid as stated ; aud were to wrong claimants, though care 
was taken to guard the public interest. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Approved and ordered to be paid. 

O, O. HOWARD, 

Brig. Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C., this 12th day of September, 1870, of 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $1,338.50, 
in full of the above account, in currency. 

(Signed in duplicate.) GEO. W. BALLOCH. 

IS'oTE. — Voucher No. 3 to this supplementary account-current will be 
tound among the preceding exhibits and noted as Exhibit F^ 



Exhibit P*'. 

[Form No. 22.- No. .3, Oct., 1871.] 

Abstract of expenditures. 

J. T. Watson $500 00 

I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 3, supplementary 
account-current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 

.62 was received in this case, the full amount being $285.50. 



259 

chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedinen and Abandoned 
Lands, ou tile in tliis Office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



The United Sfates to J. T. Wateon,.D.r. 

February 28, 1871. — For services as agent for payment of bounties Bureau 
Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lauds, Helena, Ark., from October 1, 
1870, to February 28, 1870, inclnsive, being live months at $100 per month, 
(less internal-revenue tax,) live hundred dollars $500 00 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Bvt. Major-Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

I certify ou honor that the above account is correct and just ; that 
the services were rendered as stated ; and that they were necessary for 
the public service. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH. 
Bvt. Brig- Gen. and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 6th day of March, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, the sum ot 

live hundred dollars, in full of the above account, l)y check No. , ou 

the United States Treasury, dated , 18 . 

(Duplicate.) J. T. WATSON, D. O. 



Exhibit Q*^. 

[Form No. 22.— No. 4, Oct., 1871.] 

Abstract of .expenditures. 

C. 0. Wilson, clerk $116 67 

I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 4 — supplementary 
account-current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned 
Lauds, on tile in this Office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

The United States to Chas. C. Wilsoyi, Dr. 

April 30, 1871. — For services as clerk. Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lauds, at Washington, D. C, from April 1, 1871, to April 30, 1871, in- 
clusive, being one month at $11G.67 per mouth, less (internal-revenue tax,) 
one hundred and sixteen dollars and sixty-seven cents $116 67 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Bvt. Major-Gen. U. S. A., Commissioner. 

I certify on honor that the above account is correct aud just j that 
the services were rendered as stated ; aud that they were necessary for 
the public service. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig-Gen. and Chief Disbursing O^cer. 



26o 

Received at Washington, D. C, this first day of May, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, the sum of 
one hundred and sixteen doHars and sixty-seven cents, in full of the 
above account, by check No. — , on the United States Treasury, dated, 
(paid in currency,) 18 . 

(Duplicate.) CHAS. C. WILSON. 



Exhibit W. 

[Form No. 22.— No. 5.] 

Abstract of expenditures. 

October, 1871. Juo. L. Wilson, agent $133 33 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April 16, 1874. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of Voucher 5, supplementary ac- 
count-current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Balloch, 
chief disbursing officer Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



[No. 22.] 
The United States to John L. Ifilson, Dr. 

1871. 
April 30. For services as disbursing agent of claims, Bureau Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, at Columbia, Tenn., from April 1, 
1871, to April 30, 1871, inclusive, being one month, ® !|133.33 per 
month, one hundred and thirty-three dollars and -|%^i |133 33 

Total amount, one hundred and thirty-three -i\r,> dollars 133 33 

I certify, on honor, that the above account is correct and just; that 
the services were rendered as stated, and that they were necessary for 
the public service. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and CKf D. 0. 

Approved and ordered paid. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Bvt. Maj. Gen. TJ. 8. A., Commissioner. 

Received at Washington, D. C, the 6th of May, 1871, from Bvt. Brig. 
Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, the sum of one hun- 
dred thirty-three dollars and thirty-three cents, in full of the above ac- 
count. 

(Duplicate.) JOHN L. WILSON, 

J). 0. of Claims Bureau. 



26l 

Exhibit S^. 

[No. 6.] 

October, 1871. H. C. Percy $44 85 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April IG, 1874. 
I certify that tbe withiu is a true copy of voucher 6, supplementary 
accouutcurrent for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Gen. Geo. W. Ballocli, 
chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lauds, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



The United States to H. C. Percy. 

1871. 
June 1. For expenses iucurred in the public service since January 1, 1871, as 
follows : 

Printing letter-heads , $1 50 

1 letter-coijying book 2 00 

Telegram to Second Auditor and his answer 2 15 

1 letter-file book 1 50 

2 dozen pencils 2 50 

1 quart lluid 1 25 

1 quart copying ink 1 50 

Postage-stamps 6 75 

Blottiug-paper \. 1 00 

1 bos steel pbus 1 50 

Sundry small stationery 4 00 

1 bottle red ink 1 25 

Trip to Hampton to investigate case of Caroline Smith 4 50 

Ferry and car tickets 1 50 

Expenses of runner to Suifolk and return to hunt up sundry cases 

sent him by Mr. Drew 3 91 

Services of a messenger to run after cases in town and country, on 
which claim division desired investigation — total time 4 days, at 
82 8 00 

Total to date 44 61 

Received payment. 

H. C. PERCY, 
Agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 

Abandoned Lands, Norfolk, Ya. 

A true copy. 

J. A. SLADEN, 
Bvt. Captain U. 8. A., A. D. C. 

Approved. 

O. O. HO^yARD, 
Commissioner B. B., F. and A. L. 



262 
Exhibit T*^. 

[Form No. 22.— No. 7.] 

October, 1871. Cliarles W. Keyes $61 15 

Treasury Department, 

Third AriDiTOR's Office, 

April IG, 1874. 
1 certify that the within is a .true copy of voucher 'Mo. 7, supplement- 
ary account-current for October, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. Geul. Geo. W. Bal- 
loch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Eefugees, Freedmeu and Aban- 
doned Lauds, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 

A- 

Covington, Ky., July 18, 1870. 

Col. Benj. P Eunkle to L. D. Croninge)-,Dr. 

.500 bounty receipts, half-sheets, printed on both sides $5 00 

Received payment. 

L. D. CEONINGER. 

B. 

Covington, Ky., August 3, 1870. 

Col. Benj. P. llunMe to L. D. Cronivger, Dr. 

22 copies list of colored troops, to wit : 

Composition, 24,440 ems, at 60 cents, $14.24, press-work, $4, paper and binding, 

$2.75 ■» *20 00 

Received payment. 

L. D. CEONINGER. 

C. 

Covington, Ky., Septemler 1, 1870. 

Col. Ben. P. Runkle, 

To L. D. Croninger, Dr. 

500 bonnty-blanks $5 00 

Received payment. 

L. D. CRONINGER. 



D. 

Covington, Ky., Septemher 19, 1870. 

Col. Ben. P. Runkle, 

To L. D. Croninger, Dr. 

2,000 bound circulars, relative to colored soldiers' bounty $19 75 

Received T>ayment. 

^ L. D. CRONINGER. 

E. 

Covington, Ky., Septeniber 20, 1870. 

Col. Ben. P. Runkel, _ 

To L. D. Croninger, Dr. 

1,400 one-eighth sheet circular, relative to colored soldiers' bounty $11 50 

Received payment. 

^ ^ L. D. CRONINGER. 



263 

The United States, 

To Chas. W. Keyes, First Lieut. U. S. A., (retired,) Dr. 
1870. 

July 18. To casli paid for printing as per sample marked A 85 00 

August 3. To cash paid for printing, as per sample marked B 20 99 

September ] . To cash paid for iirintiug, as jier sample marked C .5 00 

September 19. To cash jjaid for printing, as iJer sample marked D 19 7.5 

September 20. To cash paid for printing, as per sample marked E 11 .50 

6g 24 
Paid : - 61 15 

I certify that the above accouut is correct and just; that tlie services 
were rendered as stated ; and that they were necessary for the public 
service. 

BEI^. P. EUNKLE, 
Agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Eeceived at Washington, D. C, the 5th of June, 1871, Bvt. Brig. 
Genl. Geo. W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, the sum of sixty-one 
dollars and fifteen cents, in full of the above account. Paid in currency. 

CHAS. W. KEYES, 
First Lieutenant, U. S. Army, {retired.) 
Approved : 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General, Commissioner, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



Exhibit U''. 
October, 1871. W. L. Van Derlip $600 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 

April IG, 1871. 
I certify that the within is a true copy of voucher 8, supplementary 
account-current for October, 1871, of Brevet Brig. Gen. George W. 
Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands, on file in this office. 

A. M. GANGEWER, 

Acting Auditor. 



War Department, Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoked Lands, 
Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, D. C, June 30, 1871. 
Received of George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $600 on 
account of services as agent at Wilmington, Del., in the case of United 
States vs. William B. Wiggins et als., from April 1 to June 30, 1871. 
$600.] 

W. L. VAN DERLIP. 
A true copy : 

J. A. SLADEN, 
Brevet Captain, U. 8. A., A. L>. C. 
Approved : 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen., U. 8. A., Commissioner B. R., F. & A. L. 



264 

Exhibit V*'. 

Washington, D. C, February 12, 1874. 
Gen. Allan Eutheeford, 

Third Auditor, Treasury Department : 
Sm: A controversy seems to have arisen between General Geo. W. 
Ballocb, late disbursing officer of tbe Bureau Eefugees, Freedinen and 
Abandoned Lands, and General E. D. Townsend, Adjutant-General of 
tbe Army, the former asserting that he has taken up and accounted for 
819,440.57, realized from interest on certain bonds, and the latter, that 
he has not done so. 

I remember that I approved the vouchers that, I believe, belonged to 
this fund, and requested that the amount be taken up and accounted for 
on the Refugees and Freedmen's fund. Will you have the kindness to 
state if this amount was so taken up and accounted for in your office? 
1 ask this to enable me to fulfill an order of the Secretary of War, 
couched in these terms, viz: '"If it has not been accounted for, I hereby 
direct that the amount be at once deposited with the Treasurer of the 
United States." 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 
(Indorsed :) Washington, D. 0., February 12, 1874. O. O. Howard, &c. 



Exhibit W^ 

Treasury Department, 
Third Auditor's Office, 
Washington, D. C, February 12, 1874. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Washington, Z>. C. : 

Sir : In reply to yours of this date, asking to be informed whether 
Brig. Gen. G. W. BaUoch, late disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands, " has taken up and accounted for $19,440.57, 
realized from interest on certain bonds," I have the honor to inform you 
that the amount above referred to was taken up and accounted for by 
that officer upon accounts rendered to this office, and that the same was 
disbursed upon vouchers approved by you, and audited and allowed by 
the accounting officers of the Treasury Department. 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 



265 



s 


'e 


^ 


s 










« 


■a 








'W 










« 


fs; 










Pi' 


s 






.^^ 


^ 






=0 




00 


V 


■^ 





00 -vs 






^^ 00 

^ 00 ^ ^ 

w ^ * - 

P^ c,^ S" s 



■k^-i.s 



"^ ^ 2? 

§ I i 

o ~ ■» 

O' 00 00 

§-« 00 

« ,^ 1i 



«s 


,^ 


« 








1? 


't' 


<< 
-« 


s> 










^ 


•to 




^ 








'S 


'« 








1^1 







• .00 


00 • 


00 




^ 


• CO 


t- • t- 


^ 


■ o 


. -, 






• . v" 


TT t 


f 




in 


• CO 


00 t 00 


m 


.tc 


r-H « ^^ 




^ -o 




. . If: 


^ • 


LO 




CO 


, ^-1 


■V . -^ 


00 


• 00 


t- • ^« 




O -*J 2j 




' ' S 


O) • 








• c< 


OJ • a 


S 


•C! 






sis 




. . n 


n • 


1 CO 




00 


• CT> 


1 


- . t- 




• £^ 


o : o 






• :g 


n 1 
CM ' 


i 




t-" 


I o 


oT : 1 o; 


ccT 

0-1 


! in 

|C31 


gJ : gf 






;^ 




I I '. 








i 




















































>i-S 
































a u 
































S« 




« 1 '• 
























1 




o 'i: 
































cq 




'. ■ '. 
















• 








1 








:38 : 


00 00 

00 ri 


o 




'• o I 


o p- m •c 


5 • 
3 • 


§S |8 


1 




r;^ 




:i : 


CTrf 


— ^ 




lo ; 


O O C75 ^ - 






_. ^_ 




^ 




?;£; 






• o . 


O C! t- . ^ 




?- 5 1 ci M 




o 




<?>? CO 


o 




. o . 


c 


2 O Oi 


1 "" 


5 '• 








s 




' n '• 


"fe 


rr" 




lo" I 


c 


5" CO* CO 


1 :„ 






fo" CO 


II 








!^ i 


r-l <N 






. lO . 




5 rH CO 


• c- 


5 • 








s 




: : ; 








: 




















p. 
































a 












', 












I 








^ 




1 i : 








1 












1 








_2 




: : : 








; 














■ o o 




■M 


:3 












J 














■ o o 




a 


> 




■ • ' 






















! o o 







,i3 


























• o o 




o 


□Q 


























lO o 






03 






























§ 


iz; 




■ I ; 








.' 














o" o" 




>. 

^ 




























««• 








• • 1 








, 


. 








— ; — 


— 






rt 


£ 




'< '• '. 








J 


















^ 


o 












• 


















o 


a 




I i ! 








J 


















JS 


"3 








1 




; 
















! 




P3 




: : i 




1 ;' 




I 


















, 






















— ; — 


— 






fl 
































o 


^ 




• ' * 








• 


















g 


> tA 




; ; ; 


























o 


|« 




! : 1 








: 


















13 

a 


o 




: i i 








j 


















« 
































13 


a 

o 




:8 i 


o . 


§ 




'• o • 
• o ■ 


o 
o 


: § 


:" 




^ 


! 00 

CO 




o 


Id 




loo I 

• CO j 


00 I 
CO ■ 

-•^ i 


co" 




:g : 


s 


: g 


• CO 




CO 
C£ 

t~ 

CO 


I CO 

I to 

: ?; 




a 


, 






















~~r~ 








"3 


o ^ 




; ; ; 


























^ 


g 






























6w 


|g 




; ; ; 








'• '• 


















o 
































.- 


iS"" 




; ; ; 








• i 


















o 
































QQ 














, 
















































■d 


3 




• t 1 








• 1 


















o 


O 






























■c 


.^ 










• • 


















§ 


g 




1 ', 1 








! ; 




















'rt 






























s 


CO 




I I ! 




























o 

>< 




lo : 


o ^ 
in o 


■»■ 




is i 




a ?? 


'•en 




Oi 


"* in 
t- in 








1 1~ I 

1 5 '• 




§ 

t- 








OS t^ 

00 'a* 


is 

• CO 




o 

o 

CO 


C 22 

o t- 






;§ 




• ^ I 


rt"CT 






!o I 


O 


o 


• Co" 




co" 


co' co" 

00 CO 






la; 
"g i 

•5H 




.'oo I 


CO Ci 
00 J~ 


05 




lo .' 


o 




•C) 




g 


CO 00 








:? : 

lo" I 


■^ CO 

-v in 

■-ICO 


8 




• O I 

:S : 
:B : 


CO 


CO o 
oo rt 


.'o 




<;* 

cc" 

CO 


CO Of 

r^-" — -" 

XI CO 
t>- r-l 






& 




•• : 1 




























'• '. a ; 






I ; a 




a 










t^ 


: : 6 : 






; ; fl 














to 

QD 

af 
o 
K 

< 


'■ :$ 

ill 

:.s 

til 

o o. j3 


o 
s 

03 

2 




oo 

« 

a. 


i.s 


3 

s 

C3 

tu 
to 

3 

A 


i 


u 
o 
p. 

£ 

>> 

s 


1 N 

; a 

!" -.2 

o a 

pq<:c 


a 

3 
u 

a 
a 

03 


E 


3 

o, 
£ 

£ 
-1 





o '^ 



266 



o in 



air* 

t3 



TOO) 

CJ(M 

—"00' 
IC t^ 



•ee- 



> o» 



00 cc 

LOO 

inn 



o u 

10 = 



S ^ a 
o O- a> 






-;= P to 



>. 



>.e-< 



fq<;p5 






267 



r-i in 
000 
cc to 



LO CO 

— Tto" 



o «o 

O QD 

n to 



t~ o 

Ci CO 

•^ o 

to'o" 



O —I 



O 00 
to CO 

QO 00 
CO— I 

CO 01 

ct'co" 



^ CO 

oco 

O OD 

00 lO 



00 00 

^ CO 

o'oo" 



— ' o 
a to 



O CO 
o IJ 



CO t- 

co'-^"" 



CJOJ 
-3> (7! 



CO —I 

— < Oi 
f-CO 



o en 
coco 

135 en 

00 m 

o CO 

cfira" 

— ' 00 

05 i- 



I ^ 

5 a-5 

O ^ 3 



o 
c 



;.2 "^ 



O Cl- D 



a! S 

III 



268 



■= a . 






s'-o 

o '^ 

B 



o 






03 




m 


3 


■n 


m 


i 




□ 


^ 


tJ 





O CO 



00 — 

to 10 

lOOO 

t~ to 



QOCT 

M n 

-* Oi 

00 c^ 
to" in" 



cs as 

o -^ 
(^ -- 

00 — I 



o (^ 

— Tto" 



— I n 

to o 
to 00 

O OD 

ctTo" 



am 



_ to to 
to" to" 

0-3 



CO to 
t-"j>" 



•00 

0> —I 

in"co" 



— <N 



o a 
i~-"o>" 



to 00 
— CJ 

to f~ 

— "ffj" 
act 



OT to 



0> CO 
CO o 

CO t- 

tC 00 
i> o 



m 00 

-X) in 

(^ o 

com 
to 00 

(N-T 

CO CO 

t- in 



to •* 

CO CO 

o m 

.-H CO 

eft-" 

en to 



s g-S 

o p. ^ 



1^ 






C 5; n 
g-tS 



els' 

o p. a> 



269 



■»Q0 
000 

O >o 



— ■ £^ 

(N 

to O 

01 CI 

— "« 



— '"o" 



o"— '" 



^ P 



IS 



■c o 



«C5 

■2 .a 



O CO 

— CT 
CI f~ 

in— T 



= n 
•00 



CO 00 

— . CO 

an 
—I 01 



O IM 

M —1 

irfcd" 



o 00 

05 — < 
c* o 



f^ O 

00 00 
10 of 



o 00 

O C5 



00 o> 
o ^ 

00 
—Too" 



— ' CO 
CO Tl> 

GO <n 
in X 

O TT 

C3f TjT 
00 P3 



00 f~ 

oco 
CO in 

co'aT 

OOM 



i-HC} 

00 c~ 

oTco" 



11 a 



00" oT 



O 00 
O -H 

CJOO 
CO CO 



— 

o -a 

.z; a 

1 .5 ^ 

■SIS' 

O CL, © 



a IS 



■S 2 to 

g P..3 



a i; ■ 



•Sa 

3 a-<5 
o a. oj 



.2S 



^^" 



270 



6 

^3 









TJ« 1 TJ« 


Tf 






f~ 


t~ 


PI! 






c 





II • 


■a. -o. 








^ 


^ 






rj 


"T* 












: 


OJ 01 


U-, 


'd 






c 


n 


CO 






ir 


Ln 


1 in il 






c 





1 ; 





O 








2 


T 








c 


CO 


1 CO II 






a 


O) 




5) 5> 




■S -S 






c 












IT 


in 


in 






a 


01 


CT> ' 


00 00 




^ 






Si 


" 


^ 








^ 


1 " i 






- 


^ 


1 : 


0" 0" 
CK 03 




J. 


00 




00 


X 


_ 




■^ 




II 


^ 




•!r 


TP OJ 


~ 


o» 






U3 




m 


in 


i» 




t~ 


f- II 








—1 00 




OD 






J^ 




r^ 


t^ 


r-l 




.^ 






in 




in 


LO II J^ 




t» 




i"* 


in 




in 


in 










1 II 










CO 








3 u 


rj> 






TP 










1 


•r 




■^ 


^11 in 




m 




= « 


£? 




« 


co" 


^- 




_r 


_ 


- 


to" 




to" 




_- 




^tT 




CJ 




(N 


(7) 


00 




c» 


00 M 


to 




to 


II f^ 




i^ 


Ph 


•ee- 




" 


•^ 










II 










II ^ 


































1 

1 


































































J3 





























































































s 





















































oir 


in 


c» 




CJtO Tt 




in 




inco 1 00 









.2 


^ 




«= IT 


05 


•»■ 




TfO tc 








— ■ to TJi CO 




CO 




■3. 


CJ 




(71 tc 


CO 


,_^ 




— '^ c 




oo 




00 to CO to 




to 




10 




in c: 


in 


t~ 




J- i^ c 








tc 1 CO C7i 




3 




a 


•^ 




■^ 0- 


■^ 







e 


1 = 









Otc 


1 in II 00 






QJ 


n 




co'tc 


co" 


^' 




^"00" -J 




0" 




o"o" 


rr" 




■^" 




S 


fB- 




-^ c- 


" 


UJ 




<M OJ 


















"T 




tp f 


o> 


t31 




O! C 


^ 




m 




050 1 crj n 




CO 


t» 


OJ 


t~ 




t~ tc 


00 


to 




to ■« 


t' 




-— ' 




— 1 ^ t^ CO 




to 


=1 



^ 


CT 




oir 


CT 







0- 


c 




CO 




CO 00 1 Tf 00 




00 


> 


CO 




co c 





■<*« 




tr t~ 


c 








f~ in — 






in 









Ou- 


in 


Ol 




CJ 3 


c 




J^ 




t^ 00 1 05 II 00 




QD 







































§ 
■z 


cf 




ct — 


of 


Tt« 




'^ — 


r- 




l>> 




OJ'S' 1 t^ II — ' 













— c 




CJ 




Oi rf 






OJ 




OJ- 




1 01 




01 


s 


■ee- 


























h 






>> 






































































^ 




^ 




-i* 


Tj< 


1 00 




00 


Qd 




o> 




t73 


a> T« 




^J« 


g 


£ 


01 




o» 


05 


1 ° 







c 




m 




in 


in in 






& 





CO 




n 


CO 


t~ 




J^ 


r- 




01 




en 


a 









X 


^S 


eo 




to 




T 




■^ 


Tf 


1 


05 




01 


• C5 rr 






in 




in 


in 


•^ 




•3* 


TT 




to 




to 


tc 


OJ 




OJ 




































"3 


r^" 




t~ 


t- 










C 












Oj" 








€& 








at 




O! 


0. 




'^ 




■"* 


~ 


OJ 




61 
















































o- 


o; 


to 




to IT 


o- 




■V 




•^ T^ 


C3- 










s 


,^ 










c 




O) 




OVC 


c 




00 




OOC 


^ 


<3> 







~ 










c^ 


(M 


,_4 




.-1 t- 


L^- 




s 




s> = 


c 


OJ 




OJ 


•5W 










m 


in 


01 




cj c: 


oc 








CO o- 








CO 


«^ 










in 


in 


CO 




coir 






S 




OTT 


■<J 


CO 




CO 









































c 












to 


in 




in c 






CO 




rftc 


r 


to 




to 


a 










-^ 




^ 




-r t^ 







CJ 




at, 01 










"S 






































a 







































• -^ 


rt' 


g 


Id 






































• 

• 






ia 


SM 






































1 ' ° 


0" 


d 


X 








































^« 


c 









































'•f/S- 




§ 




































(N 




CJ m 


t- 


00 




QOC 


c. 




t- 




t~a- 


X 


1 ^ 




-'S' 


c. 






—1 





i^ 




!^ C 






to 




CO c^ 





1 00 






13 


v,- 


10 




m CO 


C-) 







— 







d 




=) t^ 





a> 




o> 


-2 


p 


as 




CJiO: 









Cl c 












c^ 


1 00 




OD 


& ^ 






cote 


r^ 


to 






? 




00 




So 




•V 




-^ 


«*-! 









































rp 




^ C" 




CO 




co"- 


(- 




CO 






OJ 






O) 




z; 


^ 




C!<M 


1 






r- 


01 




^ 




■^ ■* 




CO 




CO 


6 




































n, 




IC 




in c: 


m 


ira 




in IT 


c 




to 




to — 


m 


to 




to 


-3 


■3 


<?^ 




O) c 


OJ 


00 




oacc 












CO 
















,_. 




-- a- 


OJ 


t^ 




J- oc 


^^ 




„^ 




— . c^ 


OJ 


.^ 




^^ 




h-i 






00 c 


t^ 


■<s' 




TCOJ 


oc 




01 




C3C- 


■* 


CO 




CO 





-^ 




■^ C3 


^ 


to 




tOCJJ 






to 






■* 


00 




00 






































« 


a 






■a-C! 


■^ 


CO 




CO'* 






CO 




co -* 




•^ 




rp 


■3 


E 




eort 


(TJ 












CO 




coco 




o> 




OJ 


s 


05 


































«^ 


10 (?J 


r^ — 


■^ 


r-< r?< 


in oc 


„ 




to to 


OJ -"S- 


OJ 


ino 


in 




•2 


00— ■ 


c. « 


00 


I— TT 


inir 


c 




010 


tooc 


01 


ino • 


in 







02 in 


1 '^ L^ 





J^f- 


•VOi 


cc 




--OJ 


CO to 


CO 


m to 


,_^ 




ir: 


to t-^ 




»-o 


OJC- 







t- 


CO T» 




CO 








10 in 


00 





r-i i> 


00 f 


C" 




CO TO 


OJ CO 




CO 




i> 






























1 o'c^ 


co" 


co"-* 


t-"o= 


c 




— in 


r^'oc 




— 






to 


t- •* 


c^ 


£- 


t~oc 






^ 


Tj. c? 


in 


O>0J 






E«» 


1 -- 








•" 












'"' 


a^ 


01 


a T 


in 


in rH 


to — 


,f. 




(JiLO 


-3< 


Ol 


in 


in 




-£ ^ 


f- r- 


^ a 


CTJ 


a>^ 


tc 


•^ 




r^ m 


t' — 


tc 


Oi CO 


OJ 




« t 


n sj 


to IT 


_4 


T-in 


- 


ex 




CJ 00 


C^ 


1 ^ 


CO 00 


in 




00 g 


to 






CO -^ 


ooc 






CO 


CO — 











i~ to 


^ c 


Tt* 


to to 


OJ tc 






t-OJ 


0- 


1 °~ 


OJ ^ 


'S* 




'2 ^ 


— "0" 


t-"c: 


t^* 


into" 


oj'r^ 


■^ 




co'-^" 


00c 


t^ 


crT-v" 


co" 






00 OJ 


t^c 


t^ 


oc to 


intc 


01. 




CO 


mo 










cH 


Ci -^ 


t- c 


^ 


OCl 


CO c 









c-. oc 




CO 


■'I' 


























































^ 


1© 
































c 










s 












s 






: 


5 








00 

00 




£ 






00 




0- 






to 






£ 






1 i 












c 


^ 



c 




C3 


c 


t 


c 
c 




w 
ca 
S 




c 
c 


> 









5 !§ 


1 

t3 








CO 




i c 


t 




■5 33 








!= 1= 

.5 * 


£ 












f- 


'n ? 


> 




ix; 




> 




W 








> 




1 ^|i 

— » 








i-H 

J^ c 


1 " 




c c- = 






III 


D 1 
C3 

2 




) 






p: 


< 


P( 




e- 




p; 


< 


fV 




h 






p: 


<; 


Pi 


C-l 




P3< 


P^ 





271 



• o t^ 



O f~ 



;|1 



CO CO 

f 1 

oTto" 



o 10 
CO 00 



ir: CO 

CO as 

t» — ' 

—I CO 



coco 



o ^ 



OJ CO 



tO 'X) 






OJ 



od"oo 



en — ' 



CO lO 

o ■* 
cr: CO 
— o 

cf ocT 






M<JPh!» 



—I to 

to t- 

^ to 
oco 

en—" 
C( CO 



to t^ 

>.o to 

10 oT 



o>3 

CO lO 
to"—* 

OJtC 
to CO 

O CO 
t^ 00 

drrt 



uot-" 



00 o 



to" to" 



2 11 



|a> 



O lO 

oi'S'" 
o — 



;|1 






• till 



O 'J' 

r- 00 

C. CO 

r: -^ 
o"oi" 

(N CM 



to CO 
rj" -r 

CO n 
o 1^ 

QOCO 



—J to 

to T 

to QO 



— ' CO 

■^ ;-o 
to o 
o'o" 

CO ^ 
O- 00 



o o j 



272 






»s 



O 00 

CO CI 

CO 00 
f— 00 



CI CI 

o = 



t~co 

00 CJ 

cito 
o'cT 



CJtO 

Ol — 

CI ■» 

CI 



CO CO 
00 00 



CJO 

00 CO 



t~ in 

OD O 
'I" O 

in o 



^~ to 

— C! 

C) LO 

CO CI 

cfr-" 

lOio 



oT^" 



c> o 

00 TP 



05 O) 
CO 00 

oo 

CO CI 

r-ToT 
eocj 



■* CO 
n CO 
O (^ 

oo"co" 



c3ci 






t — I 

l-l "^ 

00 CO 

Qo't^" 
CJ 



o in 

— Oi 
00 CO 



o en 

00 t~ 

O CI 



CI o 

CO CO 
Oi CI 



01 CJ 

Ol — ' 

en 00 
— o 

inoo" 

CO CO 



CO rH 
O -« 



CO lO 

oira 



00 oo 

Oi 00 
CO -^ 
CO t~- 

Cf'5>" 



CO CI 

Ol 05 

cc -v 

00 — ' 
TT O 

o"— " 

tpCJ 



00 r-. 

coco 

O 00 
LOCO 






CI CO 
t~ CO 
CI — 

00 -^ 



in o 

r-'CO" 



r- CI 

in o 
in — ' 



00^ 
CD 00 

coo 
o t- 

O Oi 

r-To" 
— O 
00 —I 



O3 00 
rt'oo' 

— o 
Ci in 



a £ £P2 

o n-aj-S 



o § = o 



~ p-£ 2 

o S"ai 



i» 



I IS c3 



5 i'S' 



■s 2 "> 

O CI. 1* 



27; 



t^ 


■^ • 


'^ 


1 




t- 


. f^ TP . 




1 . • t- j~ 












TJ1 . 




tj 












t~ 


c^ • 


" 1 






: t- CO • 


r 


! . • in f~ 


■^ 






' t~ 1^ 


00 1 




'{~ t~ ■* 


TP 


















1 • ' 


CO 


CO 






■ LO d 




CO II 


. mf~ QB 


CO 




o 


■^ . 


>»• 1 






5 in 35 1 




. • CO in 












to '. 




' 








f^ 


Oi • 


at 




c 


J 31 — 1 . 




. • CJ OJ 


a> 








• CO CO 




to II 




m 




in 


CO 1 


c-j 1 






1 00 t- • 


t^ 


1 • .ODtO 










• d 33 


t~ '• 






■do CJ 


d 






















-^ 














' fXt -^ CJ 


d 




in" 










c 


s't)"" oo" '• 


a 


; : " ^" 












t-" ; 




- 










" ; 
















oo" 


00 






. COCO 




t- ; 


'• co'co" t-" 


o" 






c^ • 


c^ 


i-n 




. '< in < 




n '• '. '. 


CO 


CO 


d 




d . 

00 ■ 


d d 




i 1 d 


d 






en . 


tN 


o 






c 


to • . . 


to 


to 


00 




03 ! 
m . 


00 Ci 




; i "^ 


d 






o • 


05 


-f. 




. . t;* . 




-- i .' 1 


_1 


^^ 


33 




33 




' 1 









C^ ' 




C! 




CJ • 


c 


CO • • • 


00 








■^ ■ 


m 00 




00 


00 






in ■ 


in 


■^ 




. . ^ . 


■^ 


TT . . . 


-^ 


^r 


■^ 






-.^^ CO 




• 1 CO 


CO 






in : 


IC 


-rf 




• oT 1 


3 


to" • i ' 


to" 


to" 


33~ 




33" co- 




i ! 1 co" 


CO 






a ' 


c? 


to 




to • 




t-. • 1 . 


t^ 


t^ 


00 






oo t^ 




. . 1 t~ 






-ir 


n • 


c 


- 




— 






— r- 




CO 1 • ; 

: : ; i 


CO 


CO 


CI 






Ct d 

; 1 ; 

:| : 


— 




d 


: 




• 


•vcc 





il = 








c 


Ci 





M* 1 ! • 




1- 


C" 







CO to 


t^ 


11 : 

c> 





■_ 


d TI 








oo 


o 1 n 




. r^to 




to . • • 


Sd 1 to 


to 




to 


IT 









00^ 


CJ 




I 


in in 


o to 




I to o 




t~ '■ ', '. 


t^ 00 1 o 


m 




m to 


o- 


to 






to oc 


d 






m t^ 


TT 1 130 




oo XI 




o • • • 


O 3 


33 








d 








toe 








^ lO 




o 




o tc 

'• LO 




00 . . ■ 


00 35 j — 


?- 




^- 33 


f- 


— • 








00 






t-"ar 


Ci" 


in" 






to" I i ] 


to"— 


in' 


co" 




co"-." 




to" 






to"oc 


,_r 




: 
















— d 




d 




d 


c" 
















to 00 


c> 


a 




■ 31 to 


i~ 


n '• '• '• 


^ t^ 


.^ 







CO 


£ 


_, 






— 1~ 


to 




• 


C-5 t- 


■^ 


in 




in f- 




in ■ . • 


mtc 


— * 


i- 




t^ t~ 




CO 






CO tc 


CO 




J 


O »J 


to 


05 




■ 35 — 


C 


t~ ! ; ■ 


r~ v 


00 







00 


3- 









3- 


33 






c^: o 


to 


c» 




c< to 


c 


u • • ■ 


d to 


CO 






—1 00 


d 


CJ 






d T 


d 






ino 


c = 



















to 


^ 


00 








■* 






rn'o" 


to" 




1 tc"o" 




co" • 1 • 


co"*^ 


TP 


CO 




00 co" 


TT 


33" 






sTto 


to" 






-^CJ 


CI 




Clin 


c 


'"^ I 1 I 


— c 


d 


d 




dd 










— c 








t--* 


t- 1 00 




'■ 0000 


c 


t~ ; 1 i 


r^tc 


33 










_ 


d 






d to 


•rp 






o t- 


i- 




^-•^f■ 


i~ 


to • . • 


tote 


33 






— . 


3! 


33 






cr. oc 








t~ ■* 


t- o 




" I O C) 




-^ t ! ! 


— ' 3- 


{^ 


CO 




cooo 


^ 







'> IOC 


d 






CTOO 


in 1 oj 




35 ^ 




CO • ■ « 


CO p- 








— (33 


OC 


(~ 




• t- L-- 


00 






t^ Ol 


o ■«< 




■•^ ^ 


cb 


in • . ■ 


m IT 


o 


to 




to CO 


t- 






• 1 ODOC 


33 






naT 


-3-" t~" 




I t-"c=" 


o 


in" j • j 


m'TT 


03" 


1^ 




t-"33" 


,_, 


1 ^" 






^if 








e«CT 






. — d 










CI 




CJd 




1 d 






CJ c 








tjin 






i ^ § 


c^ 


c» I 1 I 


gji2 


CO 


to 




to S3 


"^ 


II m 






moc 


CO 






OJCO 








00 


d . . . 








-1 


si II 33 






03 — 


CI 






in t- 


ti I« 




! S'' 


CO 


in 1 1 1 


m c( 


d 


•«< 




^^ 


3- 


to 






to ir 


00 






in<N 


to ■^ 






35 


00 . • ■ 






-^ 




■V -^ 


O- 








33 or 








UiOi 






i ci° 


c 


i^ . . . 


t~ — . 


CO 


t~ 




t^ 33 




ce 






CJOC 


m 






t^a 


~ t~" 




• r-'oo 




to" I 1 I 


to" 00 


^ 


lod 




00" 33" 


^^ 


m" 






in'oc 


co" 






nn 




« 




CO M 




CO • • ■ 


coco 




d 




d d 




d 




■• 


CJC 








ir>c» 


= 




:T5 


'• S> 33 




o ; ; 1 


o o 


_ 


; : . 


00 












c 








OCT. 


c: 




t- 


t~ t~ 






en 35 





d 




d —1 




CO 






CO c^ 








1-H ^J" 


n 




t^ 


1 t~ t~ 




00 '• I 1 


00 ^ 


tc 


CO 




CO 33 


•^ 


















— ■ CJ 








rp T 




«g^ 1 . . 


TT i^ 








TT 33 


•<r 








to to 








en cj 






to 


to to 




to i . . 


to 05 


CO 


-^ 




— . 33 




















od"ar 






f-" 


! i^"t-.' 




to" • • 1 


to'tc 




to" 




to'LO" 




m" 






m"ir 














'^ 


































too 


•^ 


O Ol 


1 1 _. -. 


"^ 


O -w 1 1 


•* to 


C) 


J- m I • 


OJO 


c: 


J^ CO 




t~ 


t- 






Ol c^ 


n 


— ' o 


(NC» 


o 


d o . ■ 


dCJ 





— 10 . • 


CI 00 




— c CO 




m 


m 






S;'^ 


05 


t~oo 


'■ CJ° 


m 


in-i I ! 


torn 


1 f3 


CO — . I • 


■<)< 00 


m 


d T 




to d 


m 






o cj 




c»g 






— in . • 


to to 


1 =^3 


mto • • 


— ( 00 


CJ 






CO 00 






• 


n n 


o 




• Ci'tO 


^^ 


coco • ■ 


to to 


1 ^ 


33 t^ . • 


t~ CO 


CO 


TPO 




m LO 









"OKf 


r-" 


oTod" 


' f~=2 


to 


CD" I • 


OO'd 


co- 


03" ' • 


o"— " 


Q- 


to'rr" 




o"co 


co" 




_ 


^ CD 


■«r 




■ cjin 


d 


'^ I I 


—1 f- 


rn 


CO • • 


•a- -~ 


d 


co 




■»■ LO 








(N^ 


_, 


tri 




; 'sg 


to 


—,'.'.', 


-1 d 


^ 





: : 


m 


m 


00 






00 00 







00 «5 


f- 


OJ 








3. • I ■ 


3) -1 


d 


CO 


; : 


CO 33 




to 






tc n. 






■* — 


to 1 


t~ 




! 1 f — 1 


CO 


— 1 ! i 1 


— CTJ 


^- 


CO 




CO 01 


33 


_, 






— ' 00 


to 1 




O —1 


o 1 


f^ 




■ f^ CO 






to GO 


d 


■»*< 




•V n 


00 


^ 






r^ LO 


00 




00 in 


^ i 






• to o 


CO 


=^ : : : 


•33 CO 




m 




in CO 


c» 








00 CO 


TP 




"'"^f 


in" 


^ 




i 1 ^f £f 




f-- I : j 


r-"o3 


^ 


33" 




03" 3r 




to" 






to" 33 


c*" 




^Cl 














1 


CO 




CO CO 




'3' 






TJ. TP 








ej« 


— -J m 


; Ito- 


in 


CO— ' I I 


-r — 


.-1 


=5 to I I 


to d 


^ 


to (^ 




CO 00 


m 




■vijj 


Ot^ C^ TO 


. to in 


X 


to to ■ • 


d 00 


m 1 


Oi> ■ . 


I- -3" 


CO 


m Tf 




c- 


33 




o>co 


CO -1 o> 


1 1 o ■* 


CO 


in c» • ■ 


00 to 


Sl 


-.Jl — 1 ■ . 


m 33 


to 


to — 




CD 00 







Of to 


en in t~ 


• 1 CO to 




r-r^ ■ . 


TI>C^ 


tooo . • 


rj.00 


m 


M- d 




to — 


m 




■^ i~- 


n CI 00 


. — 00 


(^ 


— to • • 




d 


cooo • . 


dOO 


CO 


TP i^ 






33 1 






























- 




■<S-00 


■>»• « 35 


. 1 00 t^ 


■^ 


cooo • • 




■ 03 


00 CO i ■ 


d m 


to 


(33 i^ 




t-"to 


00 




o -^ 


rr t~ 


1 1 ""Si 




Or- I ■ 


d LO 


d 


33— . . 


—1 C3 




CJ 




co.a. 


1 




^ " 
































^s. 


S S.'^^ 


: 2JS 


t^ 


d o I I 


CI f 


Too 


CD f. I ; 


t^ -^ 


CO 


OD)^ 




in-. 


^* 




O QD 


Qi to -H 




t^ 


in CO . . 


-3fJ 33 


00 


COC3 . . 


Clt^ 


m 


^1^ 




CJ TP 


00 




00 (^ 


? fr "^ 


'■ c»to 


LO 


C 00 I 1 


GCC3 


00 


— I t^ • I 


33 33 


C3 


d 33 


'■ o> m 


to 




-H CO 


GO t^ r^ 


in m 


ir: 


o o . . 


O 33 


1 


33!^ . ■ 


to 00 


t~ 


CO CO 




CJ CO 


00 1 




>-- m 


in m M 


33 m 




in t- • • 


CI 33 


1 '^' 


to TI- • • 


«to 


'a* 






— (33 






into" 


CO t~ — 


Q0"C0" 


in 


c>~ '• '• 


^CO 


0" 


to"t-" I ' 


^0" 


CO 


o"Gcr 




33" iX 


0" 




SSKS 


S G'^ 




CO 


mm • • 


O d 


1 00 




m — 


T*. 






to 






00 to 


Ci o 


i O CO 


t~ 


f^ 


00 to 




to — 1 • • 


t~m 


CI 


to 




to -. 


m jj 




X) 










869. 
men 




oc 




a '• 

a : 






g : 


I 










t 






—' I ;'st 1 






ts • 






00 


T3 . 




• O 


a 
o 


c 








EMBER, 

ation . . 
and frei 


o 

a 

u 




1 c 

' "ct 


■a ; 

§ ; 


u 


0. 




ANUARY, 
iriation . . 


and tre( 
report 






►> 

^ 




r 




o 






>> 




^ :-£S : 


>■ 


? 




r 


s • 


>^ 




» 


; 


.^ 







£ i; s o 
5 ^•■v.c 



18 H E 



o ^-^u 



3 I- .2 



2 74 













f^ t^ 


-^ 


■^ 






1>f- 


^ 


1 ^ 


II 




aj~ 


CO 


CO 




""S 








31 


10 








CO 32 


CO 


CO 




1^ 


t^ 


r- 


t3 








m 'O 





c 






CO CO 


CO 


1 CO 




^0 


in 


in 










OJ CO 


^ 


1 5 






0-. CJ 




1 C) 






in 


in 


O 


aj 










Ol 








i~ 00 


CO 


CO 




CO 


CO 


CO 






































a 








li^r 


lO 


"" 






CO ^ 


00' 


1 H 




fC-T 


00 


X 


S 


























M 












X 









_ 


c 












Io 11 T^ 








■^ 


-^ 




>.S 












•-^ 




OJ 








en 


3> 1 t- 








J^ 


t^ 




S * 




n 








(M 


c 


CO 








CO 


1 CO 11 00 








00 


QO 




















01 








en 


\ m U -v 








TT 






§2 




00 








s 


5 


CO 








CO 


1 CO 11 CJ 








CJ 


CJ 










































p5 t* 




00 








00 


oc 












1 00 11 CO 








CO 


CO 




« 




10 








1« 


IT 










CO 


CO in 








in 


in 


























<^J 


1 OJ II 01 








CJ 


M 




^ 




■S- 
























n 














6 


















































1 
1 






















































































































^ 

















































































































s 




























































ao 








00 00 





„ 








t-in 


X 


1 r^ 








— CO 


CJ 




.2 




02 








Oi I-- 


00 


"J" 








TJ" CO 




00 








xt- 


OJ 




j= 













Tf 


CO 


>o 








100 


rf 


CO 








co in 


^H 




a 




« 




















00 <M 


CO 










rO S3 


CO 




g 












06 rx 




00 








000: 





35 








31 in 


CO 




0; 




■^ 








tjTtji 




cf 








oT- 


OJ 


1 32" 








ofc 


■ cj- 




S 




<;«• 
























*"* 








— OJ 




_ 




00 








00 — ' 


CO 


00 








0000 





1 -^r 








TJ< CO 


35 


X 







01 








05C0 


to 


QO 








000 


C! 











ox 


J- 


a 


~ 













ro 


© 











32 


X 


1 CO 
CO 

.1 








CO CO 





E» 




CO 












CI 








C> -H 


CT- 










t- 


o 


J3 




OJ 








CJ 0- 














COO 










ci en 


CO 










































S 




CO 








CO Tfi 


ex 


CT 








S( 10 


01 


00 








00 


CJ 


£ 


z 




«(=^ 








c 












rl CO 


C 


CJ 








CJ in 


OJ 


>> 
















































































X! 


u 




TJ< 








^* 'T 


^ 


1 ^ 








t- C^ 


CC 


CO 








coco 





fl 




•^ 








TJ. Cr 


»r 










— r- 












— 


3J 


& 







CO 








CO QC 


CT 


C5 








cn CO 


t- 


in 








in ^ 


CO 


O 






OJ 








OJO 


oc 


CO 








CO TT 


c 


CO 








CO c 


CO 


•^ 




m 








CO -1 




00 








00 10 


t- 


CO 








CO IT 


00 




a 




oT 








m'CT 


c 


(?}' 








(N CO 


CO 


10" 








inx 


co- 




n 












— 




























5" 




^ 




































s 




^ 








— • oc 


t» 


■<J^ 








•vo^ 


oc 


tP 








■^ t^ 


co 


a 




01 








C3 ir: 


cc 


OJ 








CJ a- 


tc 










— o- 


X 













































S 


X >> 




OJ 








o» ST 


CO 


ira 








m c 


X 


CO 








coo 














^CT' 


QC 


t^ 








(^ c 


<2 










"3< C^ 


X 


t«H 


•3M 






CO 








cor- 




00 








00 u- 












•<T r- 


CC 























































rt r- 


CO 


gf 








l^i Tf 













0"^ 


CO 


•a 












— Iff! 










C) CD 












.-H 01 




a 




^■ 




































•a 
g 

a 











































id 




00 








00 r* 


IT 


00 








00 QC 


J- 


1 to 








CO a- 


CO 




05 








CJJ ^ 


t>- 










OS CM 


ly 


CO 
1 CO 








coo 

CO t-' 


CO 




m 








CO QC 


■q 


ot 








01 — 




in 








m ci 


t- 


1«j 




ai 












:- 








CO t^ 




00 
1 f~" 








oox 
f-'oc 


O) 


^ 











































a 




•€«■ 
























i 
















r-( ro 






•g« oc 


■* 


C) =: 






(NC- 


_ 


1 00-<l< 






ojir 


CO 


S 


fi 




■<^ CO 






Of~ 


f- 


inco 






— oc 





OJ-1 






■^ oc 






"^ 00 
























1 










"3 




ct — < 






rr —J 


t- 


coco 






1^-* 


t~ 


1 CO ^ 






i~CC 


a 


^ 


13 




tr» 






TT C 


OC 


coo 






X c^ 




1 t^t3> 






CO CJ 


in 








mn 






00 C' 




00 






X X 


a- 








CO CI 


00 


Cm 


1- 







































irT 






lO"-- 


ir 


CO 






CO X 




co-oj" 






ino; 


,-0 



0. 


Z 




^ 






cou- 




0> 






(TJ T 


O) 


CO 




~ 


coir 


CJ 


K 




t* 








r- c^ 


cc 


ta 








jra^ 


3 


00 








00 c 


OJ 


■C 







c* 










CO 


t- 








00 ^ 


ir 










00 IT 
00 CO 


CO 




iJ 




CO 








00 c- 












CO CO 




OJ 








CJX 


in 









t^ 








f-OC 


c: 










lO c^ 


I- 










r— ir 


Tf 


a 


.s 




— r 








— '(> 


^ 


(N 








(N^ 


^ 


" 1 co" 








co-x 


in" 


'3 




^3- 








■* ■» 




CJ 








OtO) 




1 " 








OJO 




S 


w 







































CO Ci 






(N (X 


CO 


CO 




CO X 


u- 


OD—i 






31 t- 


<5 




^ 




W^ 






00 CJ 


■^ 


(NOJ 






T a- 


■^ 


•a< CO 






CJX 


in 









n cc 






CTi iC 


IP 


00 CO 






TP -rr 


3- 


X 31 






X -w 


CO 




i» 




00 ro 








a- 


CTi^ 






3- 




00 00 






i-X 








0^ 






io S 


CO 


CT-. CT 






013- 


C 








CO -■ 






& 






































co'gd" 






^""(^ 




tp ^~ 






<M CC 




moo 






coe^ 


05 








^^ 






•vir 




coco 






t^C 


C 


00 OJ 






•— C" 






!?; 






































^ 






























X 




10 t^ 






Gi Tfl 


X 


J~ ^ 






—1 01 


c 


o> a> 






00 -' 


r^ 




■•^ fc^ 




TJ. 






in c) 


Ci 


coo 






TT I- 


CO 


1 in 






in CO 


OJ 




0! 0) 




-H 






^ LO 


CO 


TT CO 






t~ CJ 


Tt< 


1 f~ CJ 






33 









lO (X- 






CO 


t- 


TT CI 






to CO 




1 CO 






■'9' CO 








QOCC 






cicc 


in 


CO CO 






CO CO 


CO 


000 






00 TI" 


-v 




s 1 




o^oT 






o"« 


" 


00" co" 






^-fo 


X 


co"— T 






t'-'o 


t-" 






TP id 






t^ 





CTOO 






SJS? 


10 


1 — ' r^ 






00 


°S 






CO 






OS 


X 


00 






3S CJ 




i^ 






r^ rH 


CO 






•e^ 
































t3 
























1 




















c 












a 












a 



















» 










» 










a> 










r- 






S 












s 










a 










ou 










2 










o' 




■o 










Pi 




c 


Cm 


c 




X 


■ c 

a _ 


fc 




►J 
i-t 

Cm 


a 


tS 











•< 




5 -a 


c 




u 


0^ 


: 




o-a 











pi 




.S =s 


;. 




65 


2 

.2 '^ 






■^§ 


i- 








P3 


> 


-.ai- 






^ > 




> 

3 




^ > 


.'§■1- 


> 

u 
3 








Eq 


l|l| i 




2 s s ca 




a aj -s c. 










p. a75 t- 




— » ;- 












p: 


< 


PC 


y 






E- 




n 


<; 


Pi 


a: 






H 




n 


<; 


K 


K 






H 




1 



275 







C 










a> 


o> 


to 








to 


1 to 


IT 










in 


l/^ 






.^ 


SB 


o> 




















in 


m 


t~ 








t~ 


t- 




a 

1 


1 •-■ 


« 








c^ 


n 


to 








to 


1 cc 


C! 










OJ 






QD 










00 










in 


1 in 










o 








O 








o 


o 


t^ 








t^ 


•^ 


00 








00 


00 




'S 


2-^ 


t-" 








i-~ 


t-" 


oT 








Ol" 


u- 


oo" 








ot5" 


QCT 




< 


--C c 










00 


oo 


3* 












00 








00 


oo 




-5 


•«■ 








^^ 


" 


a 








CI 


CI 


















°'6 




61 03 


to 


to 






C3i- 


to 


to 






c: e* 


to 


o 




o 






(N 


Ol 






CI— ■ 


-^ 


-.^ 






Cin-( 


T 


■^ 






v-S 






TO 


l.O 


lO 






-^ Tt« 


00 


00 








00 


00 










iNtM 


Tf 


■^ 






Clin 


f^ 


t^ 






CIO 


00 






U 


O C3 






to -1 


t^ 


t- 






to 00 


TJ^ 


Tf 






:c^ --' 


t~ 


t> 




E 








^■'^" 


t-" 


t-" 






r-Tf-" 


2 


- 






^'o' 


to" 


s 






3i 


(^f 








(Tl 


Of 


1 CI 








CI 


CI 


to 








to 


o 






>v2 


» 








to 


to 


1 " 








n 


CO 
















-% C3 


c« 








ir» 


C( 


1 to 








o 


o 


r- 








f^ 


r^ 








in 








CO 


00 


to 








o 


o 


o 










o 






= 'x: 


^ 










■*r 


c* 








CJ 


CI 


















D --H 








































p^ ^ 


o" 










o" 


ira" 








in" 


in" 


o 








o" 


o 




















o 








o 


o 


00 








CO 


00 






O 


C) 








C! 


(N 












~~' 


















■»=> 










































ira 








inc 


00 


r- 








t^ c 


to 


o> 








03 t- 


00 






X 


C5 








ca r- 












o c 


CI 


o 








o a 


c- 






2 


00 








oooc 


05 


in 








inc 


1^ 


in 








inir 


o 






c 


lO 








m ■<i 




00 








ODC 


CO 












Ci 








m 








r? -v 


o 














CJ 








CIC 


o 
















































Q 


i- 








t^ o; 




1 CJ 








cir- 




CI 








CJ '.- 








S 


«e- 








































•^ 








-^ ir 


^ 


ffi. 








o>c 


_, 


o 








o r 


cz 






•^ 










00 -^ 


to 


o 








o c 


— . 


OJ 








03 -rt 


iii 






■> 


j^ 








£~ cr 


C! 


Ol 








a>c 


^ 


CJ 








CJ -i 


— ^ 
















Ol 












to 


CO 










c* 






-C 


o 








E> c^ 


CJ 


t~ 








ooc 




CO 








CO a 


lb 






33 


12" 








ira"c 


vi 


■^ 








^"tc 


Cl" 


in" 








in"c 


oo" 






;z; 


■»«• 








^ -^ 


CI 












CI 


^~^ 








-■ c- 
















































• 


o 








O i." 


lO 


en 








0:t£ 


r- 


a> 








CT) 


lO 




£ 


o 








o a 












■^ o 


■'S' 










ov - 






(S 


o 


o 








C31C 


00 


?1 








t- c 


to 


o 








O L'- 


Tf< 




>> 


S 


<D 








to ^ 


CI 








CI c 














CO 




o 








oc 


o 


t~ 








t~ tc 


00 


in 








LO ir 






J2 


"3 
pq 


o" 








o'c 


t^" 










— 'c- 




r*" 








(-""c 


~ <N 


; 


a 














Cl 








CJ c 












-IC 








» 




































_ 


to 








to tc 


o 


t- 








r-a 


s 


CI 








CJ t' 


m 


1 


X 


<p 


(M 








C!i- 


in 


■* 








TJ.CC 


oo 








00 c- 


lO 




C3 


E >. 


,_H 








1 ^ 


^M 


^^ 








-- 1^ 


CO 


CJ 








Cl o 


:o 


1 




00 








CO b- 




-^ 








-n-C 


CO 


■^ 








■V TT 


o 




.a" 


■5« 


lO 








in to 


'~' 


00 








00 c 


to 










— CT 


00 


1 


a 
o 
S 
o 


o 










<M"ir 


n 


to" 








to"— 


ieS 


in" 








m"tc 






li 








OT c 




CJ 








CJd 




CI 








Cl c 






a^ 


IC 








1.0 Tf 


C31 


n 








cote 


.-co 


CO 








oo a 








_o 


o 








O IT 


■<r 


T 








■*tc 


CJ 


to 








to tc 








t3 

a 


. id 


to 








to 3- 


M 


CJ 








CI — 


tT3 


to 








to tc 








to 








to 1- 
















C?3 
















1«j 


i> 








c^ r- 




• 03 








C3 -.^ 


LO 


in 
















C3 


-jT 








^■"t 












CJ 






















.a 


€e- 








































a 


o 




















^ 
























































^ 




^ -^ 






00 IT 


n 


OI^- 






cr.-bc 




00 CO 








o 




s 
o 


O ^ 


t^ 00 










r- in 






CJ c- 


03 


in si 






LOC 


t- 




05 -^ 






TI>C 


n 


COf- 






iO 1 


„J 


-^ in 






J^ c 


TP 






a 


TJ* -!« 










cooo 






cjr~ 


lO 


to to 






Ol t 






g 


& S 


CJ— 1 






m 5 


1 " 


in j^ 






cn o- 


CO 


to -r 






r- tc 


ITS 




a 


^^-if 






irfr- 


■ U- 


n 






TJ*" — 


cT 


od" 






oTtc 


o" 




C3 

"3 


;!"" 








Ol ^ 




CI 






CJ 


CJ 








-.c 






.o 






































































^-1 


22 


00 








00 o- 


_H 


to 








to ^ 


TO 


-3. 








TS. -* 


^ 




o 


'5 


CTl 








o c- 


O 


o 








o o- 


oo 


in 








in c^ 


(7* 




.t^ 


O 


Qj 








^ ^ 


CI 


o 








o — 


,_, 


t^ 








t~ tc 


C5 




o 
p. 


cn 








03 oc 


00 


t.5 








to — 


in 


o 








o ir 








t- 








£~ ir 


t~ 


•T 








-^' tc 




r- 








t^ iX 


'-' 




3 


a 


in 








ini- 




to" 








to"t- 




in" 








in"L- 






■a 
o 


'3 

02 


«5- 








T-H r- 
















CJ 








CJ c 






^' 


•a- o 






T ir 


^ 


OO— 1 






a> c- 


Tf 


a: to 






in — 


CO 




1 


CI C) 






TtO 


CI 








rr t^ 


CJ 


_ o 






CJO 


to 




s 


c 


o ao 






oo — 


CO 


to 1- 






■^ c 


?J 


a> CO 






Cl o 


£ i 


C^(^ 






o tc 










in oc 


Z^CI 










^ 


O (Ti 




e^ir 


CI 


•^r '-' 






to oc 


C?J 


a-T 






coc 


. ». 1 


































o'^f 






CJ t 


cj" 


-* ^ 






oo c- 




to CI 






oTir 


lO 






& 


n. 






(TJir 


n 








c 


CJ 


CO 






CO i> 


CO 




» 


rt CO 






T 1- 


t^ 


incj 






t^ — 


to 


O: ^r 






c^ — 


a 






cd i^ 


to m 






O: IT 


n 


mm 






rJH IT 




^a 






CIC 


Cl 






30 S: 


ffjf- 






03 'X 


^^ 


cjin 






00 'T 


CJ 


Cl o 






t^ It" 


CJ 












to r^ 


Ol 


oiin 






TP t- 


(^ 


= 00 






ooc 


to 








'T CJ 






tC Tf 


- 1 ^ 


■qi -^a* 






c: -^ 


tf< 


to -5 






t^a- 


00 






r3 cs 


CTrr" 






to'ir 




oo"—" 






mt~ 


- (-)" 


tc"— r 






j^'c 


to" 








■2 






ira ur 


o 


OiO) 






e~ -tr 


CO 








03 = 


Ol 






to 
•ee- 






to- 


lO 


to 






t- — 




in 






in- 


■»*' 






t3 










































r 


















































5 










8 














a 










a 




















d 

2 


c 


n3 
a) 

£ 


c 




d 

2 






c 




J5 


a 




c 








>h' 


o-o 


c 




w" 


§'2 







>* 












< 




> 




z 


;|§ 


0) 

> 




-A 
s 

1-5 




> 








2 S = o oi 




s»>g-S— 3 




tgE-s i 










"S g boo 3J 

3 S E o ce 










^ x*^ ja a. 




P :r^ ,a ^ 










o a.c'S l- 




o O. a, ■§ !. 










PC 


'< 


PC 


X 




t- 




PC 


< 


P3 


a; 




b^ 




pq 


<5 


M 


w 




H 









276 







c 










Q 


^ 














CO 


to 


_ 








■ ^.^ 




. 






^ bH 














c 




f^ 








rj 


CO 


CO 






1 ^ 


a ( 






III 


cc 








CO 


o- 




„^ 








.^ 


__J 


r* 






1^ 


t-» 
















m 
















s 








Oi 


QJ 








10 








in 






C( 








Cl 


















l-SS 


0" 








0" 


^ 




_- 








^ 


_- 


co" 






cd' 


■ co" 








3.2 

<T3 


i- 








j- 


P 




f~ 








1^ 


1^ 


'^ 






1 TT 










^ 








'^ 


" 




'"' 








" 










r 


■^ 








"°^ 






(31 r- 


to 


tc 








05 f~ 


CO 


to 






CO i— 





s 




CO • 






01 -H 


^ 


■^ 








Ci r-l 










CO —1 


in 




03 • 








■*S 


00 


oc 








in^ 


(3 









c» ov 


_^ 


,^ 




• 






-H in 




tc 








00 in 


■^ 


"^ 






■<r -v 





o^ 




r* • 


I'll 






CO — 


t~ 


t' 








CO rH 


in 


in 






t~<x> 


in 


in 




t~ • 






^f""" 


to" 


tc 


" 






in" 


m" 


1 "" 






00" 


oT 


os" 




■»>* '• 






«5-^ 
































■a 












1 










n 














"^ : 


!» 


CJ 








CJ 


OS 




in 








m 


to 














^ 




^ • 


>>2 














c 




































CO • 




m 








CO 


r 




,_ 








1 


— ^ 


■^ 








i< 


^r 




' 










CO 
CO 


r 




s 








s 


g 


g 

















X ! 


•- 











0" 


c 




_J- 












Cl" 














'^) 








C( 


(? 




to 








to 


to 


o:t 






f ^ 







S ' 


" 


«^ 








^ 


" 




'"' 


















1 
1 












i>- 








C~ T« 


i- 




2~> 








f^ c: 


^ 











= c< 


ct 




— ; 




.2 


to- 








to (- 


e 












_. Tt 


t> 


10 








ina 


■V 




in 1 




0. 














c 




t- 








f* ^ 


in 


■Ti» 








Tf c 







t- ! 




S 








GO t^ 






10 








kniT 





in 








inc 










S 











— 


c 




CT 








Ol ^ 


IQ 










CO IT 


r-< 




a '• 






■^" 








TTL'- 


^ 




0" 








0"^ 


t of 


t^ 








r-"c- 


cf 




CO ■■ 




^ 
























1 




















(M 








CJOC 


r. 




'J* 








-^ ^ 


t^ 


in 








in a- 


■^ 




X • 




^ 


(» 








CI a- 


P 




to 








to Tf 


r-- 










~^ C- 


X 




CO . 




^ 


>o 








iO(M 


t~ 




CO 








CO c 


to 


cc 








QD ir 


t^ 




' 




> 













■^ 




00 








cox 


Oi 











ot~ 


CO 




01 • 




^ 












c 




in 








in IT 


Oi 











^ 






X . 




s 


1-" 








f-"f- 


c 




„- 








^a- 


^^ 


t^ 








j^"c 


to" 




. x" \ 


a 
s 



Z 


■9> 








<N 


c 




■^ 































00 








00 tc 


oc 




in 








in ^^ 


01 


Oi 








CTir 


CO 




; 


c2 


£ 










CO X 


•^ 













03- 





■v 








Tj. ^- 


CO 




TT . 





CO 








00 (X 


IT 




m 








« C' 


oc 


CD 








to ir 


CJi 




«9* ' 




a 


n 








CO s- 


tc 




CJ 








J) <x 




r^ 








r- 






CO • 


>i 












-H C- 


a 

















27 








m (7 


to 




X • 


^ 


"3 


in 








into 


- _ 




en" 








ofc- 


'3'" 


lO 








m" tc 


r 


















































1 


■^ 























































































J 


ii 











tooe 


O) 




CO 








CO TT 


„ 


rj» 








Tf tc 


ot 




to '• 


X 


00 








00 m 


1- 




00 








00 CO 


10 


CD 








to IT 


03 




ct • 


CS 


5 >> 


>n 








in to 


c 




to 








to c 


m 


Oi 








Oi OC 


X 




^~t I 














c 




TP 








^ a 


r>. 










co- 


J- 




in • 


^ 


■3M 


n 








CO 


tc 




l^ 








!^to 


co 


CO 








toa 


CJ 




r~ • 


a 


3 


0" 








ir- 


^ 




(tT 








(N""* 


1— T 


^ 








r-^^ 


* 




x" \ 




g 


•^ 








--1 C 


" 















































































H*" 


10 








mir 




































13 













oox 






■^ 








•<»• ^ 




00 








OO X 










a 


id 


in 








in IT 






CO 








CO c- 




00 








XX 












to 








to to 
























































T 








^ ^ 






















H 


1«2 


■€«■ 




































• 








•a 


J3 








































M 










CO 'S^ 






t~ c 


IT 




i^ CO 






to 


'T' 


t^ 






t~ X 


I-^ 




o> 


^ 


J 


CTCO 






inoc 


Cv 




TTin 










a 00 






^ 


1 " 




O0» 





lOCO 






00 a- 


„ 




00 






ai ^ 


^- 


??^ 






t- — 


1 ^ 




oco 




a 


t ■ 






00 — 


c 




t= 






r-c 


t'- 






Tj- tr 


c 




f^ — ' 





|l 


CQ 






OV TT 


■^ 




CO Oi 






CI X 


TJ< 


in CO 






X ■» 


to 




LOCO 


c 






































10 cm" 






t-"'? 


■^ 




(Nr-T 








" rrf 


cd",-^" 






{-"C 


1 ■* 




x" 


tl 


•«■ 






-■ Oi 






CT 






CI 


CI 



















































1 






00 











to 


tc 




_l 






"~ 


r^ — 





c. 








(r»t- 


1 in 




i~ ; 


g . 











CO -^ 


cc 













t- 


t- 


m 








inrr 


en 




^ • 


" 


3 


00 








00 0- 


c 




.^ 








y-* ^ 


CO 


_j 








1-1 c^ 


1 -—I 




CO I 


c5 












r- 




>n 








inoc 




CO 








CO tc 


CO 




o> ■ 















ir 


ir 












rt CO 


Ot 











0^ 








■c 


a 




















































00 cc 






in 








inir 




f-' 








t-"i>. 






CO i 


'c3 














































C3 


02 


^ 










































■d 


_ \o 






t~ -t 


i~ 




to 00 






^ j~ 


« 


CO 00 






^ -^ 





l^ 


in 01 






^ a 


t~ 




to to 






CO -T 


>— ' 


-r = 






into 




(NX 


S 





to CO 






Oir 


^ 




in CO 






tTj -^ 


Ci 


f~ m 






(TJir 


CO 


T). l~. 


>< 


OICT 






oc 


a 




■^ to 






p- 




-■OJ 






-■00 


t^ 


0: -^ 






to T 






rl C 






00 










^ rH 






to 'J' 


X 


ojoo 




& 






































10 10 








c 




CO 00 








cS 


r-H e- 






X 




CltO 




^3 


^ 






eoiT 


0, 




rr 






inS. 


Ci 








rt c^ 






1^ 


CTt- 






cn r 


tc 




(M to 






GO m 


n 


ss 






(TJ to 


to 


X I 




00 LO 






CO T 


a 




TP -^ 






00 to 


a 






C!tO 


in 


■ 




« £ 


CO o>. 






to -» 


^ 




in 






m ai 


CO 


■^ ^ 






UOtP 





_J \ 




33 S 
5 a) 


TP 






inc- 




1 


TT TT 






ODtO 




•* in 






0^ -^ 


m 


X • 




— • 01 






r- 


oc 




c= t~ 






r^ to 


.— ( 


CiCO 






in 01 


[CO 


CO • 


































t » 






00 






S-Sc 






in ^ 






to in 




m 00 






CO X 




cyt • 




'J'O* 






oc 




■o.in 






01 1- 




■^rH 






too 


1 n 


' 




5^ 


^ 






to 






in 






1^ r-t 


■V 


to 








in 


t- • 




P 
































1 










C 














c 












c 





































to 




















s 




a 






s 






S 
■a 








a 

(U 




00 










c 
<: 


1 


c 
c 




s 




g 


1 









C3 


a 

c 






fa 
as 




i 




ts a 


I 






:ii 


2 





H 
U 
> 

C 

a 



•5 a 

.3 "^ 


£ 


S 

Ed 

> > 






s 




P bDC 
Iff 


> 




a. 

m 


> 






> 




iico 

III 


> 

C 

a 
4 


a. 






p: 


< 


fc 


t/ 




E- 






n 


< 


P^ 


oc 




e 




m 


<! 


P^ 


9Q 




H 






R 


< 



277 



m • 1 
m • ■ 

at '• 


?5 




CO j 




. in • 


-3" 
IT 






in 




. • o in 

. .i>00 

1 ' in QD 

■ ■ Ol Oi 

. . ^ to 

' i ^" 


in 
m 

m 






in 
in 

Oi 

in" 






CTin 

CT 00 

to CO 
^ CO 
£-0) 

CO 




o 
9S 

Oi 

co" 




o 
co" 






CTin 
t^oo 




in 






m 

00 


1 






S> 
O 




CO 
OJ 

o 

-1 


CO • I • 
t~ ! ! ! 
to '• '. • 
oo" • • "• 

O i • ■ 


CO 

i> 

to 




CO 

to 
oo" 


00 i • • 

oil! 

o • • • 

S : : : 


00 

i 

00 




i 

CO 


oo 

00 

CO 

to 

CO 

■<*-" 






CO 
Oi 




00 
Oi 


s? 

1 i 

co" 

00 






CO 
CT 

CO 

s 

co" 




CO 
CT 

CO 
C5i 

o 
co" 

00 






o 

00 




CO 

o 


t^ I I I 

00 . . • 

in ! ! ■ 

o • . • 
^ . ■ . 

co" I I '• 


00 

in 
o 
•V 

co" 




30 

in 

o 

co" 


g : : i 

05 • • • 
to ■ • • 
OO ■ 1 ■ 

Sf : : : 


00 

i- 

00 

r-" 

Oi 




00 1 t~ 

t~ 1 -a- 

§ 1 ?, 

00 1 CO 

11 






.^ 

CT 

to" 

00 




Ci 

to" 


i - 

! § 

1 «i 






8 

00 

co" 




CO 

in 
o 

00 

co" 






— CO 

in ^ 

£-2 o 


05 

C! 

55 


to 1 I 1 

to ' ■ i 

gT • • '; 


r^ CO 

oToj" 


to 
to" 


Oi I 1 ! 

00 • • ■ 

a> '■ '■ '• 
in '■ '• '• 


Oi t~ 

00 Ci 

CO Oi 

into" 


8 

to 
in 


LO 

,to 

CO 

ct" 






inf~ 

to CT 

CO 00 

ct'ct" 




1 £- 

o 






f~ in 

■^ Oi 

— o 

-^ to 
o o 

Ci"o" 


Oi 

o 






00 oo 
COLO 

00 00 

ocTr*" 


o 


oil) 

•V 1 • . 

to • • ! 

K : : : 

co" • • j 


to i- 


in 

CT 


t>. . . ■ 

00 i i • 
oT ! I ■ 


rr CT 

■^ 00 
— CT 

00 Oi 

cTm" 


00 

to 

o' 


1 ^ 

- 






CT CT 

O30 

CiCO 

^ to 
inco" 

CT 


o 

00 
00 


CT 

to 

m 

to" 






CTCT 

to _, 

■* o 

O 00 

in '^ 
to't-" 

--CT 


o 
in 

in 






o t- 

TJ" -^ 

CO 00 
00 o 




K : : : 

cj ' I ! 

o • ■ ■ , 


in 00 
oin 

O T-- 




o ! ! I 
to • • . 

m I • I 

S : ; : 


in t~ 

So 

r-i 


r5 


in 

o 
oo" 






in Ti< 

if 

oo"oi" 


00 


00 

CO 

to" 






00 in 

tOCT 

§2 


t^ ! 

in ) 

Ci 

o 
o 






tO<N 

c^oo 


to 
in 


o . . ■ 

CO I i • , 

c» • • ■ 

m" I • • 


00 CO 

oin 

CO o 

into" 


£- 

CT 


to ■ i I 

to • • . 

§ : : i 

CO • • ■ 


to 00 

CO to 
oToi" 


o 
CT 

Oi 
CT 


CO 
CO 

ct" 






f^ to 

CO to 

c- m 

CT"oi" 


§5 

CO 

to" 


CT 

I 






O iO 


So 

CO 














i \\ 












• ; ; • 






























1 












■ i (Mrr 

■ I J to to 

• • 00 t^ 

• . .-100 


i 

cf 


ci I I I 
no '• '• '• 

°' ■ ■ ■' 
in '• '• '• 


— . CT -J 

CTO OO 
00 CT 00 

o to in 

CTtO ■* 

o"oo~ co" 


rr * > > 

to . . . 
CT i ; • 
Oi i I • 

co" I I 1 


.rf to 

to CI 

OS CO 

co"-^* 


CT to 

CO m 
CO 1 m 

^- " Z" 






tOM< 

in 00 

CO to 
rt'co" 


CT 

£~ 

n 
ct" 


m 

CO 

in" 




1 ^ o 
■^ -.^ 

1 in -• 

00 00 

1 in in 
1 


to 

Oi 
Ci 






t — 1 

■^ iO 

to « 
t" t-i 

co"-*" 


o 

00 
CO 


n '• '• '• 

•y^ . 1 . 

C! '• '• '• 
<M ■ • . 


CTCi 
CTC) 


■a- 


C) '. '• '. 
CT . • ■ 

t~ I 1 I 

CT j j 1 

f." 1 1 I 


(M CO 
CTCO 

r- rj< 

to 00 
CT -a- 

t~-'i>" 


CT 


CO 
CT 

to 
in 






CO 00 
■^ CO 

CT -.^ 
to -4 

inm" 


en 
in 


Oi 






t~ CT 

OitO 
S Oi 

r-TCT" 


"1 


. 00 


ob5 

tom 

-Tto" 

OJOJ 


OS 
00 


to OO i i> 
CJ3> . CTJ 

C) — 1 1 o; 

in cs "OS 

OICO .00 
t-'r-T Ir-T 


O) CO 

■*to 

CT-0< 
CT rH 




CT m I '• 

to Ci t . 
o S • • 

.<»< t~ . . 

o" I '• 

CT • • 


r-l to 

— T-^" 
CT 


O 

to 
to" 


CT Ci . 

t-" '• 

CO • 




Oi Oi 
^ Oi 

CO C3i 

in CO 

ss 

7~. CO 


CO 

3 


g2 : 

CDQO • 




—1 TT 

— -.^ 

£-"— " 

o o 


to 
in" j 


'• o 


CJ05 
IOC) 

a ^ 

CO .-1 
t- rl 




c) ! • -3< 

£ : : 


in O 

— ' a: 
coin 

CTtO 

cTct" 


00 

CT 


•W CO ! • 

oo ■ 1 

QOO > ' 

S§ : : 

in 1 '• 


J^ CT 

in Oi 

00 TK 

Oi to 
£:-CT 

^"o" 

00 -1 


CO 

in 


o to • 

too '• 

Ci" '• 
CT 




CO to 

ooo 

o"—" 
in Ci 

CT 


^ SS i 

S S5S? : 

r-4 t^ CO • 

oo" t-"in" • 
ml CO — • 

_, , 




r-to 

in-T 

t- oo 

S 00 


Ci 
CT 

co" 




a ; 

1 : 








00 

a 

W 


; a ; 
■ T) ■ 






4 






; ; a : 

« ; I'D ; 
- ! ! !" ; 

% ill i 

» : CO C3 . 
2 • "C «! ! 




c 
> 






30 

Pi 

a 


c 


a 
■S 

u 

■a 
a 




c 
c 

> 


, 




00 

a 

U 

< 

>5! . 




a 
2 
-S 

■a 
a 

C3 






o 
c 

> 











S|a§ 

o S'S'S 



S^.g'c 

a 2 ys 

2 a, a o 
a 5-— J3 



>>?•£ — 
■S £ to o 
2 5i a o 

o c. ao 



■S 2 fo 

§1-2 2 
o o-K'3 



278 





, 




■ coin 00 




00 


1 










s? 




1 " 




CO 


. , 




^ 


M 




= ^.. 




|ir300 n 


CO 


1 


■2 






!o i 


in 




1 




° 



ffl 


=3 *x 3 






CJ 








to 


1 to • 


to 






> 


^- 








cS 






i~ 


t~ ' 


t~ 






t~ 


t~ 






• ■»■ 












»=. 


• 




























\ 








































a. 


i 1 t --^ 

. . ■ <M 




c 
c 
PC 




•0 
























IF 




I . ■ t~ 


£ 








































s 


" ' I • cn 
... to 


cT 


p 


6fi 






CI 


?J 


° : 







•0 


■9f 






c; 


X 


in '• 




in 


in 


CO • 




CO 










"So 1- 


in I 




So 




00 . 




t- 










00 


^1 


T 


< 1 I • -^ 


'a* 


t-* I 




t-*" 


t- 


of '• 




ff» 








■< 








to 


to 


to . 




to 


5=0 




... 





■3 1 


m- '• 














■^ 


• : : ; S 











































0-^ 










:e 


^~ i 




t^ 


b- 


T(< '• 




•.»• 


A is 


c 

c 


f : : ; § 


g" 




2 


Oi . 




OT 


a 


•V • 








5 








si 


-.g. . 




'S" 




1 •*" ' 




^ 










C 


CO . 






CO 


1 ^ ; 
















to 






tc 


i i • to OC 


ff* 
























cc 


... CO •- 


in 












1 'S' 


in • 




10 














. 










CJ . 




OJ 




^ 


r- 


. I ' ' t^ oc 























a 
c 


§ 


... CC c 
. . ' ^ 


CO 




ee- ■ 














































m 


f~ ; 




»-^ 




. 











"ej 


■" . • . -^'ir 


^'■ 






r* , 




r- t^ 





. 









s 


« 








a. 

a 


S '• 




COC 




OJ .' 




OJ 














; 




00 




^ I 




















0- 


» 1 I ^ (Nt£ 


'J' 




1 


0" i 




oc 












^ 


^ 


. . . . MC 


s to 




■ee- • 








to- . 




to 






c 


3 I . ■ C^ C 


5 in 






















> 






Oi 






m ! 




in 1- 












^ 




5 • . . m t£ 







*3: 


CC ; 




00^ 


t£ 


S : 




OJ 


i 

c 


!Z 


5 


5" i ■ 1 M-J 
^ . . . ^ <> 
S- ; • ; 


-' 


S 


1 


co_ ; 




»- to 

So? 

" 


c 


r- '■ 

CO ". 














C0~ 







a 


D 1 ! ; in e 


} ^ 


C 


^i?- '• 



















a 


5 . . . C2 1; 


: CO 


3 





















E 


c 


5 • ' ' 9 "■ 


5 in 



1 









.^ to 


c- 

cr 






•.*♦ 
-.»• 






■3 

pa 


c 


^ ; ; ; 




1 


a 


0" I 






E 


i : 




^C 










pq 


«©■ • 














i" 




r> i ■ i Tt. ^ 


^^ 






5 


5 . ■ . Off 


J f^ 


















§ 


> >> 




: . . . CO c 


3 ffj " 

1 


_»" 


00 . 




00 c 


oc 


00 




00 


g" 




c 


rs . . . Oi ^ 


t- 


CO 





1 




c 


c 


•-^ 




^H 


c 


a 



■e 


IS- ; ; ; j 






CO*" I 




co"*^ 


-.3 


cf 




to 
in 

2~ 












a 




<J& . 































. 
























a 


Id 












tS 


a 
. 
























,^ 


gcc 












9 


■s« 
























(8 















• 
























□ 
2 











: 




13 


























































a 
c 
3; 


c 


f 


S : : : S^ 


^ in 


i 









































°s 


c 


1 : : ; S? 


00 

D —1 




&1 


00 
00 




385 


3 C 


< t- 




£ 







c 


^^ . . . C( - 


r 03 





to 




to 'a 


<• a 


} in 




m 




e 


=" I 1 "• «o"c 


0" of 


ID 

i 

•3 

'o 









ffl tc 

in c 


3 tt 
5 '- 

^ tc 


5 • S; 

f oT 





















^& 








, 








1 


c 


^ 1 i i .rj- c 
» . . . 00' 

B I ! ■ QD C 

n i '. i 58 1 


3 S 

00 


■3 



CO 






- c 

3 t£ 

'J a 


» 






CO 


■0 


■« 


d" 1 ! 1 co"c 
e- . . . 


c" ^" 



0. 


a 


of 




ofc 


S 


of 




of 




02 








a) 


"S 
















c 
13: 










-a 



CC 














u 




CO ^ i QD ■ 

= 00 . . ooc 


a- to 
10 


.M 


?JS 




I g 


^ 01 

D C& 


1 a> 
a>. 


s 




1 




N !0 ! • 00 


10 Oi 


S 



1>^ 


.— 
ffiffl 

to O) 


c 


■J a 

5 S 


^ C! in 

r CTOD 

■) 02 oo 


: § 




■ 


sfTJ." . . co' 


Ul" 






! to'ti 


;■ a 

1 


?? 


! 0" 

00 




« is 




jiuo . . in 


s S 




« 


?:5 


: g5? 


? ? 


0)a> 
aoc32 


• 00 

00 




sl 




iS : i 1 


31 00 

?J 




32 g 


CO t~ 

"9.C0 


00 c 




5 OTD 


in 










in 




a Eh 


o'ln 
■ee- 


'• inc 

: SS 


5" If 


5 ■«• 




















E 










1 








; ; a ; 














D 
















: : 1 ; 

; ;t3 ; 












^ 


i 








1 
•i 






fr" 




























CO 


. ■ -^ . 


t; 






i 




< 




3 


1~ 

00 




«< 






J 

s 

< 


:|i : 



a. 
c 






1 >i 

< 


ill 

>. £1. 




3, 






3 
a 
3 








p £ £f § 




P 
&5 








p 


^4 


t 

re 


J) 

3 
j 

.1 


E 




1 


5 c 

;< 


1 

1. 


IP 

4 





79 









\ 


















1 
1 


































\ 
























o 
o 

o" 










o 
o 
o 

CI 


o" ■ 

^ : 


o 

o" 




o 

o 

o" 


in 






in 

£? 
m" 




in 
co 
o>- 






















o 

CO 


1 "^ 

to 






i- 

to 




to 
in 


1^ '• 
■* • 

CO I 

to ' 

OC i 

in 1 




to 




in 
tc 

oo" 
in 


in 

88 
§ 






i 
1 




5; 

00 
1 






















5 

to 


8 

00 

s 

c-" 






to 

00 

o 




en 

00 

o 


TT ■ 
00 • 




oo" 
in 




oo" 
in 


co- 

Tf 






co" 




OJ 

to 

00 

to 
co" 


















S5 

to" 

TO 




CO 

1 " ' 






o5 

CO — ' 


in 

in 

o 


S : 

0) '• 

o" : 




CTO! 

2'r," 






o 

lO 

"^ 

!-" 






in 

O) o» 
in — ■ 

-V 

£^"00 




CO 

m 




















00 
00 

00 

to" 


n 


to 
I- 

o" 






O CO t' 

t-ro lO 

CO C^ lO 

lo m 1 ^ 


Cl • 

i^ '. 

00 '• 

in" • 




OJ o 

^H CO 
00(?} 

ino" 




TT 
§ 

co" 






00 -!• 

co'to" 


to 
co" 


1 
1 


















o" 


to 

00 

1 

co" 


to 
o 
to 






00 CO 

— c» 

to o 
o ai 
toco 

V IO- 


in 1 00 ; 
"*" 1 2 ! 

1 " ; 

1 : 




00 o 
to in 

co' co- 


OJ 

00 

to 


i 






in oj 
—'co" 


in 

to 






















o 

i 


1 "^ 

o> 






TP m 


lo -n '• 
in o • 

CJ to ' 

S 53 : 

of ' 




in — ' 
to t- 

oToo- 


■»** 


CO 






in oj 

CO £^ 


eo 

1 
































































































00 


00 

•>J< 

00 

oo" 


'g 

OD 
CO 
CO' 






CO o 
co-to" 




I- '• 

00 • 

c I 

1 ^ ■ 




t- 00 

00 CO 

o o 

t--5j" 


m 

CO 








in m 

OJ-J- 

to CO 


<n" 




















CO 


to 
to 


i 

to' 






a> CO 

(0"tc" 


■^ 
S 


?J : 

C-. . 




tc ^" 
Tc'in 


en 
t-' 


o. 






CO 

en in 


00 in 

— -oj- 


CO 

tc 
en 




















CO 


to 


§§5 

TT lO 

LO .-< 




f~ o 

oj-to" 


to 
to" 


CO en 
to yi 

00 tc 
O^ {* 

oTco" 

M —1 




OJ — . 

t~ 00 

t^ '^ 

co'to" 

in CO 


^ OS in 

03 CTJ O 

-< OO CO 
<- O OJ 

CM 00 CT 

t>-" Tj.- ^" 

-J in ^ 




r- 00 

0—1 

CI 31 

00 en 
to t^ 


to 

00 

in" 






















to 

00 

« 

s 

in" 


O nH 

'«*< to 
(^to 




-- to 

!J«CO 

irfV 

COOl 


in 

00 

a: 


oco 
00 to 

t — ' 

to f» 
— CJ 

in oo 




no) 

1> 00 


—(I to CO 
CO OJt^ 

t- not 

CO CO CO 

to oo 

m QOQO 




en -^ 

tc 

to in 

r-t ^ 
f>."Tf" 

CO CO 


in 

to 






















§ 

s 

> 








00 

a 
■^ > 

c 


s 



< 


a 
"1 






1 

to 

> 








D 

a 
< t 


' i 
', -5 

. n 

• 2 

|1 

0.0) 


3 




o 
o 
£ 
> 

i 

£ 








td 
H 

o 


a 
c 

o 

a 

a 


i: 

a 
=i 

-j; 

g; 
.= 

IS 








: 

> 

g 








«- 

a 


H 




J 

,0 
p 

5 
a 

<; 










a 

> 









28o 

Exhibit Y**. 

Official copy of a list accompanying letter of January 28, 1873, to Brig. 
Gen. 0. 0. JSoicard, late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands. 

Approximate statement sbowiug the local offices or stations of the 
late Freedmeu's Bureau, whose records are missiug or deticient, with 
]iames of officers and agents and description of records, so far as it is 
})racticable to furnish the same : 

ALABAMA. 

AssivStaut commissioner's office : Book of "letters received" for 1865, 
and all books pertaining to receipts and disbursements on account of 
bounties. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file: 

Xewton : J. F. McGogy, subassistaut commissioner. 

Wedowee : R. T. Smith, agent. 

Girard : J. B. Healey, agent. 

Eutaw : J. A. Yordy, agent. 

Uniontown : B. K. Thomas, agent. 

Prairie Bhiflt' : J. D. Frazer, agent. 

Camden : J. H. Burdick, agent. 

Tuskegee : P. E. O'Connor, agent. 

Marion : T. C. Stewart, agent 

Eupala : C. P. Wheeler, agent. 

Florence : C. A. Teinge, agent. 

Decatur : C. C. Sheets, agent. 

Claiborne : Andrew S. Bennett, first lieutenant Fifteenth Infantry, 
subassistant commissioner. 

Tuscaloosa : No books subsequent to 1866. Eobert Blair was on duty 
during the years 1867 and 1868. 

Jacksonville : One letter-book only on file. Captain Robert Harrison, 
Thirty-third United States Infantry, subassistant commissioner. 

Athens : One bDunty-book only on file. J. H. W. Mills, agent and dis- 
bursing officer, 

Huntsville : One bounty-book only on file. Lieut. Col. John B. Callis, 
subassistant commissioner. 

ARKANSAS. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 
Magnolia : J. W. Carhart, agent. 
Princeton : George W. Mallett, agent. 
Hillsboro : H. A. Millen, agent. 
Columbia : A. C. Cunningham, agent. 
Jonesboro : W. A. Inman, agent. 
Eldorado : H. A. Millen, agent. 
Napoleon : J. C. Predmore, agent. 

Helena : One bounty-book only on file, being the only book on file 
from this station. J. T. Watson, agent. 



2«I 
FLORIDA. 

No books pertaiuing- to the following-named stations are on file : 

Pensaeola: Maj. T. Sej'moiir, Fifth Artillery, subassistant commis- 
sioner. 

Key West : Capt. J. B.. Eawles, Fifth Artillery, subassistant commis- 
sioner. 

Saint Augustine : Maj. M. M. Blunt, Seventh Infantry, subassistant 
commissioner. 

Lake City : Capt. F. E. Grossman, Seventh Infantry, subassistant 
commissioner. 

Madison : Lieut. J. E. Quentin, Forty-fifth Infantry, subassistant 
commissioner. 

Gainesville: Capt. C. B. Carse, Forty-fifth Infantry, subassistant 
commissioner. 

Marianna : W. J. Purman, subassistant commissioner. 

Monticello : A. B. Grumwell, subassistant commissioner. 

Tampa : Capt. E. Comba, Seventh Infantry, subassistant commis- 
sioner. 

Quincey : M. L. Stearns, subassistant commissioner. 

New Smyrna : S. C. Osborn, subassistant commissioner. 

No bounty-books from any of the subdistricts of this State are on 
file. 

GEORGIA. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

La Grange : Wm. E. Wiggins, agent. 
Hawkinsville: E. A. Pollock, agent. 
Marion : H. M. Loyless, agent. 
Forsyth : Jesse Aycock, agent. 

Crawfordsville : Wm. B. Moore and J. H. Sullivan, agents. 
Lawrenceville : P. D. Claiborne, agent. 
Marietta : W. J. Bryan, agent. 
Carrollton: Edwin Belcher, agent. 
Dahlonega : A. A. Buck, agent. 
Hinesville : Charles R. Holcombe, agent. 
Darien : Joseph P. Gilson, agent. 
Carnesville : J. W. Barney, agent. 
Sapelo Island : James Thompson, agent. 

Savannah : No book records of J. Murray Hoag, Forty -fourth United 
States Infantry, on file. 
No bounty-books for this State are on file. 

KENTUCKY. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

Paris : H. C. Hastings, agent. 
Sharpsburgh : John L. Boiuar, agent. 
Augusta: A. J. Jones, agent. 
Smithland : S. Littlefield, agent. • 

Brandenburgh : Capt. York A. Woodward, United States Volunteers, 
agent. 

Shelby ville : George A. Harbison, agent. 

Greenupsburgh : Two books only on file. P. S. Eeeves, agent. 

Louisville : There are no book-records pertaining to the disbursing 



2^2 

office at Louisville, subsequent to January 1, 1869, uor are tliere any 
book-records pertaiuiug to bouuties from auy of the subdistricts of the 
State. 

LOUISIANA. 

Assistant Commissioner's OfQce. Volume 3, indorsement-book. 

No books pertaining' to the following-named stations are on file: 

Bayou Sara : Robert M. Davis, acting subavssistant commissioner. 

Bastrop : A. A. Milliken and (J. P. Yarney. 

Bonnet Carre : George L. Gaskell. 

Opelousas : O. H. Violet. 

No bounty-books from this State are on file. 

MISSISSIPPI. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

Durant : Henry M. Service, agent. 
Goodman : H. W, Barry, agent. 
Senatobia : Theodore Wiseman, agent. 

Natchez : Book of letters received for 1867. Capt. James Biddle, 
Twenty-fourth United States Infantry, subassistant commissioner. 

MISSOURI. 

Saint Louis : The indorsement-books, volumes 3, 4, and 5 of the dis- 
bursing ofdcer at Saint Louis, (F. A. Seely„ disbursing officer.) 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

Halifax: Lieut. A. W. McKillip, V. R. C, acting subassistant com- 
missioner. 

Rocky Mountain : A. W. Fuller, V. H. C, acting subassistant com- 
missioner. 

Rocky Mount: G. Merriam, agent. 

Concord : Joseph F. Curren, agent. 

Jefferson : William N. Thompson, agent. 

Wilkesboro : James Carle, agent. 

There is only one bounty-book from this State on file, and that per- 
tains to the Wilmington office. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. 

Assistant commissioner's office: " Letters received" books for 1865; 
"letters sent" book for 1865; " indorsement-books" for 1865; "special- 
orders'^ book for 1865. 

No books iiertaiuing to the following-named stations are on file : 

Camden : S. R. Adams, agent. 
Sumter : Samuel Place, agent. 
Walterboro: A. C. Shaffer, agent. 

Hilton Head: Maj. M. R. Delauy, acting subassistant commissioner. 
Laurensville : Bvt. Col. J. R. Edie, U. S. A., acting subassistant com- 
missioner. 



283 

Lanrensville : N. Freeman, agent. 

Laaiensville : Bvt. Lieut. Col. A. T. Smith, Eighth Infantry, acting 
subassistant commissioner. 

Chester : Capt. D. D. Lynn, Sixth Infantry, acting subassistant com- 
missioner. 

Ko bounty-books for this State are on file. 

TENNESSEE. 

No books pertaining to the foUowing-named stations are on file : 

Johusonville: J. L. Wilson, agent. 
\ Winchester: Rev. W. Green, agent. 

Humboldt : Lsaac Porter, agent. 

No books, other than bounty-books, pertaining to the following-named 
stations are on file : 

Pulaski: Charles R. Simpson, actipg subassistant commissioner. 

Gallatin : H. 0. McQuiddy, agent. 

Columbia : H. A. Eastman, agent. 

Clarksville: J. C. McxMullen, agent. 

Murfreesboro and Cleaveland : James K. Nelson, agent. 

TEXAS. 

Assistant commissioner's office; "Letters-received" and 'indorse- 
ment-books " for 18G5, and January and February 18G6. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

Lulianola: Capt. F. W. Bailey, Thirty-fifth Infantry. 

Victoria : William J. Neely. 

Jasper : Thomas H. Browning. 

Hempstead : Alexander B. Coggeshall. 

Belton : Capt. George Lancaster, Seventeenth Infantry. 

Paris : De Witt C. Brown. 

Dallas : Lieut. Henry Norton, Seventeenth Infantry. 

Sherman : Lieut. E. C. Hentig, Sixth Cavalry. 

Rio Grande City : Capt. J. H. Bradford, Twenty-sixth Infantry. 

Brownsville : Lieut. Col. A. D. McCook, Twenty-sixth Infantry. 

Corpus Christi: John Dix. 

Camp Verde : Lieut. William W. Clemens, Thirty-fifth Infantry. 

Fort Griffin: Lieut, Col. S. B. Hayman, Seventeenth Infantry. 

Fort Mason : Lieut. Phineas Stevens, Thirty-fifth Infantry. 

Jacksborough : Maj. S. H. Starr, Sixth Cavahy. 

Laredo : Capt. J. A. Wilcox, Fourth Cavalry. 

Fort Inge : Capt. D. M. Sells, Forty-first Infantry. 

No bounty-books from this State are on file. 

VIRGINIA. 

No books pertaining to the following-named stations are on file : 

Pittsylvania Court-House: William Leahey, acting subassistant com- 
missioner. 

Goochland Court-House: E. C. Morse. 

The only bounty-books from this State are those pertaining to the 
offices at Fort Monroe and Norfolk. Those of the latter-named ofiQce do 
not extend subsequent to 1867, 

H. C. PERCY, Agent. 



284 

It will be observed that the foregoing statement includes book-records 
only, it being wholly impracticable at this time, in riew of the confused 
and mixed condition of the papers, to prepare even an approximate 
statement of what are missing. 

It is not doubted, however, that they fully equal, if they do not ex- 
ceed, the proportion of the book-records. 

As the records of the late Bureau show a considerable amount of its 
work, so far as related to the payment of bounties, &c., to have been 
conducted through many of the cashiers of the Freedmen's Saving and 
Trust Company, (who, it would seem, virtually succeeded the regular 
agents from time to time,) it may be that a large proportion of the 
missing records are now in their possession. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. (7., Jamiary 28, 1873. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



285 



!:b 



'fc. 



1^ 



? CC o 



G® GO 



I 



>. 3 



■> X . -/> £ a 

"3 u » S ° 5 
^ ^ « S -^ -5 
3 _- X iL o "j 
- .2 ri ^-5 =3 

ce •= ._ ^ ^ 






"g -§ -g H 






-C -^ -n aj ^ ^ 
O o M C6 =■ « 
_"■ ^ 9 £ ' S 



i; a « S .2 !S 



^ di ,x-^ S - t « fl P S 

rSa.*- ^rFTT^-^ erf - «? 






'§1 



y: a " 



0/ +j 0^ 3 Ot ® 

s-.a c ® = s 



o-S.5'^2 



■a o s s _ 






c-gS 

O g 3 8 

=5 "^ i Jl S !I! 
^ £ 33 o £ £ 






! o -^ o 5 g 
'^•- X 






a » 



-o — 'g ^ 
■i^ o o Ji 

>^^^ ~- 

■ago 



60 



5 5 9-S 

2 a! c3 



i'^M 



o o 



o '■!; ^ 'r! '"S '-s 't; <= 's '5)'3) 



CO (P 



5;^ a " 



o o o o o o 



:r S -s -a -^ ■" <c 

Qj a> c 



■^ "^ J^ "o 

Cl I-J (Tl QO 



CT r 



*- * 1- t. -^ 

" ■ -S-cS s-S a. 

a> 3i X o - ^ 
V a ■&.= 5 P - 
I! .Sf a/ -_ o. s - 

cacebctE!aotjiMtiotiobotii>,>,d"t»i,o- 

~o^^^j<:j<!^jsji!j<: a c a x a -g^^ tl 
cJoJoooooooooSBS'^a—Oo- 
p,c^c3cCc3cecCc3c3rto!oO'c3'r'-'^'^!5^ 

j_j„ o.a,o.o.p-o.aa ajs ^ ^ " •= " ^ '^ 

QOOL-5 — ^^ — -H— lO— l^^rH,— " r-l ' 



2 "r s 2^ a 

1^-* .2-3 -Sis 

i IT -S a ^ 3 a 'S , 
- -Soi"*^ "= g 

. 2 £ ^ • " - '^'^ 7 
I c V ?> TJ J3 a* X 
I g p i; !a^ o I-- 
' 3.ZS > h o ^■ 



.— o 

C3 O 



r a 

CO QJ 



a-o 
TS.a-a 



O m-^ 
2^ O 















02 



a" ^* 
S3 

a ts 



^-: 



S 0. 
hS 

rz 5 

55 

to > 
a !* 

-2 .a 

S i ao 

.§« I 

SOtH 

few 






^^ 

a 2 

O.O. 

a a 

o o 



? ? 

a a 

Si Ui 

a fl 



a a 

■CO 



> S 



fa =-■ 



o s _OiS 

0) 'j" 



SO 
C o 



> a 

- cscc 



Z >5 



0! 

» a . 0- 



s-l 



. a 
. w ca "• 



>." a 

•ial 



7i 2 



286 



_ o S 
S C8 O 

o 



-2 £ ai^ 
J o ® a 

fl t-Tr— ^ "to 
tS W 2 ^ =« 

O c -00:5 



I .SI'S S 

•.n o £ -g *^ S 
s. - ca c s S 

"o o t. a o 2 



00 00 



2"? 



'O ** 2 i^ -J- £ 

on fe ffl S B 

'=•5 £=^£| 

fit! _■■=;,.> 



'tH — 

' O 

•Sir, 
5*-i 



;5 *Z!^ 



a i £ — ' « 'C o 






t. to 



S S .5 .2 -S S' -S 1 
m a 73 c « Ti. .= S 



?■§ S'■ 
• t. b g - 



— O "i ^ ^ 0) a: O - 
]^ -S 'O g ^ § "S "" 

§§|.||£§|, 

s- is S.2 o?= 
« 3:' g = S ■a ® I « 

. o « g bo O 






O tDt 



5 -OS 
5 2° - = 2 

?, 3 3S .!> S 



-2 o .i o 



S-n a. 
s ?" a " 

^^1 P.I' 

a s ho c» 

5 = ? *> ■» 

O ~ =r O r/1 . 



.2 S 2 S == 
vs ts = S fc 









<V rr* 



0) O 1- U S C5 
«^'C! ^ ^ 3 - 

^ § ^ ■" « .1 

_s a; -S to— 

5 = 2^i5- 



^ -9 CQ 



c; o 



t. 9 !- «« 






(O -.r-l-H 






- -- - p."- * 

^ 2 g ° ~ • £ 

«— 2 >,'^!» O 

2i '^ J5 a tJ >. c 

K ° s s~-° s 

t- x o c . ^ ;:: 
^ .^ .a J= Ph 3< ® 
•^ o ^ r w 

CO o <»- £ .S 

aj S *^ * 3 «, IT 



5 5; » S =^ ' 

S5 2— X — ■ 

g_4; 3 o o; ^; 

|2 g^.sl« 



to 



•i '' o 

I ♦J p. . 



'© O =»X CJ O O *i 

s g'.sf p p i 

S o m — £ ! 



as. 



Ei4 piH b ^ p^ P^ Uj 






u 


i 


.r 


fe 










ij 


4; 


Q 


« 




ce 


iin 










tH 


O 





Is 






H ,, 



^ V3 TO ^ 






65 


WP- p 


^ 








c 






S"?-^ ® 


O 


O ^b 


5_ 






P to to 

^ P e£ *^ 

J 2 = ^ 

S ca I 



p" 



'S « « H •€ 

-^ h s i s 

rS^ -^ 'o 

" CS p "- 

p g « .^ 2 
fe § a. P P g 

«» « p25 






28; 

Exhibit A'. 

Namher and nature of letters received, Prosecution Branch, Claim Division, 
Bureau Refugees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands, during the year 1866, 
and entered under " f/." 

80 Transmitting claims for bounty and arrears of pay. 
1 Transmitting- claims for bounty in Navy. 

3 Transmitting claims for pensions. 

6 Transmitting claiu:is for payment for services rendered in Quarter- 
master's Department, and inquiries relative thereto. 
15 General and special inquiries in regard to the prosecution of claims. 

8 Inquiries as to whether certain persons or classes are entitled to 
bounty. 

1 Inquiry relative to claims of a miscellaneous nature, i. e., houses de- 

stroyed, runaway slaves, &c. 

2 Inquiries as to time of payment of claims. 

19 Acknowledgments of receipt of letters and papers, and replies 
thereto. 
6 Applications for blanks. 
5 Acknowledgments of receipt of blanks. 

4 Acknowledgments of receipt of discharges. ♦ 

2 Letters from attorneys regarding the prosecution of claims by the 

Bureau. 
1 Statement in regard to money of an enlisted man held by his ofl&cer. 

3 Keqnesting explanation of action taken, and whether certain papers 

have been received. 

1 Relative to suspension and restoration of a claim-agent. 

2 Inquiries in regard to the collection of retained bounty. 
1 Request for names of officers of a colored regiment. 

1 Request for discharge held by a claim-agent. 
1 Forwarding commission of notary public. 



162 



Exhibit B^. 

[General Ordera No. 5'3i1 

War Department, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington^ April 11, 1867. 
The following resolution of Congress is published for the information 
and government of all concerned. 

[public resolution— no. 25.] 

A resolution in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due colored Soldiera, sailors, and 

marines, or their heirs. 

Resolved by the Senate and Bouse of Eepresentatives of the United States of America in 
Congress assembled, That checks and Treasury certificates to be issued in the settlement 
of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, 
or marines, or tlieir legal representatives now residing, or who may have resided, in 
any State in which slavery existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, the claim 
for which has been or may be prosecuted by an agent or attorney, shall be made paya- 
ble to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay the said agent or 
attorney his lawful fees and expenses, and shall hold the balance subject to the order 
of the claimants on satisfactory identification ; but no money shall be paid to any per- 
son except the claimant or his or her legal representatives, if deceased ; nor shall any 



288 

power of attorney, trausfer, or assignment of the amount of said claims, or any part 
thereof, be recognized or allowed by the Commissioner, or by any officer or agent act- 
ing under him; " and it shall be the duty of the said Commissioner, the officers and 
agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, tofacUitate as far as possible the discovery, identijication, 
and payment of the claimants." 

Sec. 2. And he it further resolrcd, That the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau 
shall be held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds hereby 
intrusted to him. In settling with the attorney or agent of the claimant, strict com- 
pliance with the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of a joint resolution ap- 
proved June twenty-six, eighteen hundred and sixtj'-six, entitled, "Joint resolution 
amendatory of a joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers, and 
the pensions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs," approved June fifteen, eighteen 
hundred and sixty-six, will in everj' case be required and enforced ; and if any attor- 
ney or agent shall, in addition to notarial fees and expenses of collecting such claim, 
demand repayment for money loaned or advanced to any claimant, he shall be required 
to make oath to the date and amount of such loan or advance, or payment of the fees 
and expenses shall be withheld ; and when the claimant shall have been properly iden- 
tified, and his account is ready for settlement, the balance due shall be paid in current 
funds, and not in checks or drafts. 

Sec. 3. And be it farther resolred, That all money held or disbursed under the provisions 
of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same rules and regulations 
governing other disbursing officers of the Army. 

Approved March 2d, 1867. 



By order of the Secretary of War 
Official. 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Assistant Adjutant- General. 



War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, Claim Division, 

Washington, September 30, 1868, 

Maj. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner, tfcc, Bureau Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands : 

General : I have the honor to invite yonr attention to the following 
statements, showing the connection which the claim division of this 
Burean has had with the Bureau of colored troops of the Adjutant- 
Geueral's Office, in the matter of obtaiuing information required for 
investigation and settlement of claims of colored soldiers and their heirs. 

Since the institution of the claim division of this Bureau (March 5, 
186G,) it has been the uniform practice of the office to request informa- 
tion from the various Departments of the Government, which has been 
promptly granted by each, with the exception of the Bureau of colored 
troops, Adjutant-General's Office, and by that office up to the 17th Sep- 
tember, 1868, at which date several communications from this office 
were returned, with statement that " the records of the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's Office are intended only for verification, and that it is at variance 
with the rules of the office to furnish material to prepare or sustain 
claims against the Government." Following are statements of the 
classes of information called for, with the reasons for making the 
requests : 

1st. The names and last-known post-office addresses of commissiorjed 
officers having personal knowledge of the fact of, and circumstances 
cotniected witli, the death or disability of a soldier on whose account 
pension is claimed. 



289 

The Cominissiouer of Peusious requires a certificate from some com- 
missioned officer baviug such kiiowletl^je, without which a chiim caniiot 
receive favorable consideration. If the burden of ascertaining;' the where- 
abouts of the officer be thrown on the claimant, not one claim in twenty 
of colored i)ersous will ever be adjusted. 

2d. Frequent applications are made to this office by colored vSoldiers, 
and their lieirs, for information as to whether they are entitled to any 
further bounty, having received but 810, as provided by the act of July 
28, 1860. This bounty they are entitled to, whether borne on the mus- 
ter-rolls as slaves, or free, but the ordinary bounty, act of July 22, 1801, 
is not i)ayable to any colored soldier, or heir of any colored soldier, 
who mustered on the rolls as " not free April 19, 1801." 

It has been the uniform i)ractice of this office, upon receipt of such 
applications, to ascertain from the Bureau of Colored Troops the status 
of the soldier as regards freedom, and in many cases claimants have 
been found to have been mustered on the rolls as " not free," &c., and, 
being so informed, have been saved the expense, anxiety, and trouble 
of making an ai)plication for this bounty. 

3d. From the organization of the claim division, there has been a 
steadily increasing tide of letters received at this office from (colored sol- 
diers and their heirs, in which complaints are ujade that their claims 
against the Government, placed in the hands of various attorneys for 
prosecution, are believed to be unnecessarily delayed, and asking the in- 
terposition of the Bureau in their favor. 

In many of these cases, in order to ascertain the status of their claims 
at the different Auditors' Offices, and give the writer satisfactory informa- 
tion concerning them, or to procure adjustment of the claims in due 
season, it is necessary to know the datg of the discharge or death of the 
soldier, and it has been the uniform practice of this ofiice to request 
such information from the officer in charge of the Bureau of colored 
troops, instead of calling upon the writer, who is often unable to give 
the information. 

In some few cases requests have been received from the assistant 
commissioner of the Bureau at Nashville, Tenn., for d;(tes of enlistment 
and death to comi)lete claims. Such information has been obtained 
trom the Bureau of Colored Troops and furnished up to September 17, 
1808. In some few exceptional cases like information has been called 
for in cases filed direct from this Office. 

From ^larch 5, 1800, to May 19, 1808, it was the custom of this Office 
for one of the clerks to leave memoranda of cases in which information 
was desired at the Bureau of Colored Troops, and the desired informa- 
tion was written opposite the name of the soldier and delivered to the 
clerk. On the 19th of May, 1808, the clerk was informed that the mem- 
oranda must be signed by Major-General Howard, Commissic ner, or, in 
his absence, by the officer acting in his stead. This recjui: emiMit was 
conq)lied with, and all information called for was duly received until 
September 17, 1>^08, when any further information was denied. 

It is respectfully submitted that none of the information above 
referred to was desired or used " to prepare or sustain claims against 
the Government," but for " verification," for which purpose the records 
of the Bureau of Colored Troops are intended, as stated by letter from 
that office of 17th instant. If the letter is iutended to close that Bu- 
reau against requests like the above from this Bureau, I earnestly and 
respectfully urge a reconsideration of the decision, and request that the 
desired assistance be given to this Bureau, an equal and cogiKite branch 
of the War Department. 
19 II E 



290 

The claim division of this Bureau bas never obtained for or imparted 
to any agent or attorney any information received from the Bureau of 
Colored Troops, excei>ting in one case alone, as follows : Mr. J. L. Kel- 
logg, an attorney in this city, called at the Office in June or July last, 
(no record of the occurrence was preserved,) requesting assistance in 
procuring evidence of deatli of a colored soldier, in order to obtain pen- 
sion for his mother, whom he represented to be in great distress. Sat- 
isfied that the request thus made was reasonable, a memorandum of the 
case was included with those regularly forwarded from this Office, and 
the information obtained and imparted. This is the only case in which 
the request of any attorney or agent for any assistance has ever been 
granted, or in which information obtained has ever been given to an 
attorney ; and in this case it was obtained and given, not as an accom- 
modation to the agent, but to enable a colored woman more readily to 
receive the pension due her on account of the death of her son while in 
the line of duty. 

» Not many days since, the same attorney left, during my temporary 
absence, a memorandum in my Office for similar information, which was 
returned to him by an indorsement so untortunately expressed as, per- 
haps, to expose the Office to the suspicion that there had been other in- 
stances of similar character. The indqrsement was written in the press- 
ure of other business, and I, confess, was not well considered. 

It has been the unvarying rule of the claim division of this Bureau, 
in all its transactions, to endeavor to protect the Government from 
fraud, while rendering every reasouat)le assistance to secure early pay- 
ment of bounty, pension, &c., to colored men who have been soldiers, 
or to their heirs. 

In conclusion, general, I beg ^ be permitted to repeat the request 
that the Bureau of Colored Troops of the Adjutant General's Office be 
not closed to legitimate applications from this Bureau, seeking informa- 
tion required for verification of claims of colored soldiers or their heirs, 
for pay, bounty, and pension. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM P. DKEW, 
Agent Bureau i?., jP. and A. L., in charge 0/ Claim Division, 



War Department, 
Bureau of Kefugees and Freedmen, Etc., 

Washington^ October 2, 18G8. 
Respectfully forwarded to Bvt. Maj. Gen. E. D. Towusend, assistant 
adjutant-general. United States Army, with reference to indorsement 
accompanying papers. Attention is respectfully invited to the provis- 
ions of the law in reference to the collection and payment of bounties to 
colored soldiers ; (last clause of section 1, public resolution approved 
March 29, 1867, published in General Orders No. 59, series of 1867.) 

To carry out the intention of that law, I am obliged to depart from 
the rules usually observed in this Department. I will see that no im- 
proper use is made of the information sought, and that no communica- 
tion is sent without knowing for what purj)ose the information is asked 
and what use is to be made of it. Every letter will be sanctioned by 
me, or, in my absence, by the officer in charge, by the officer. 

0.0. HOWARD, 
Major- General, Commissioner. 
(E. B. 98, vol. 5.) 



291 

War Depaetment, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

October 8, 18G8. 
(E. B. vol. G, p. 292.) 

All information furnished from the Bureau of Colored Troops since it 
fell to my charge, was furnished by me under the view that it was neces- 
sary to carry out the joint resolution of March 29, 1867, and I did not 
hesitate to furnish it, until certain facts (as indicated by the correspond- 
ence had with General Howard) were disclosed. As the general now 
reports the information is necessary in order that he may carry out the 
intents ot the law, I respectfnllv recommend that such information as^ 
he may require for that purpose be furnished as heretofore.* 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 
Approved : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- GenernL 
October 3, 1868. 

(See letter to General Howard, October 27, 1868.) 



Exhibit C. 

War Department, 
Adjutant General's Office, 
Washington, D. C, October 27, 1868. ■ 
Major-General O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner of Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 

Abandoned Lands, Washington, D. C: 

General : Eeferring to your indorsement of the Sth instant, on a 
report of the agent in charge of the claim division of your Bureau, I 
have respectfully to inform you that all information required by you to 
carry out the provisions of the law (promulgated in General Order No. 
53, series of 1867) relative to the payment of moneys due colored sol- 
diers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs, will be promptlj' supplied, in 
so far as the records of this office may afford. 

I deem it necessary, however, to invite your attention to the fact that 
the report which your indorsement has forwarded, and to which 1 invite 
attention, contemplates information not necessary to the execution of the 
law, as the joint resolution relative to the subject does not authorize the 
Freedmen's Bureau to obtain from this Office and then furnish to claim- 
ants and heirs, or their attorneys and agents, any information relative 
to names, dates, histories, «&c., of colored soldiers. It does not require 
your Bureau to "verify" or "settle" (or award) any claim, but simply 
imposes upon it the duty of facilitating the "discovery, identification, 
and payment of the claimants;" this after the claim shall have been 
finally acted upon by the proper officers of the Treasury. It is for the 
Treasury officer alone to verify, through information furnished by this 
and other bureaus of the War Department, prior to the certificate of 
award being issued ; that certificate issued, you are made the agent 
for the payment of the amount awarded. 

I need hardly add, that were this Office to embrace the idea of " veri- 



292 

iication,'' as iiokl by the report which you forwarded, and furnish infor- 
matioa requested, (specific data as to military history, status as to 
slavery or freedom prior to entry into service, &c..) its records would 
open wide the door of fraud by giving all necessary information for the 
fabrication of claims. 

It will be the duty of this Office to rigidly adhere to the view that your 
Bureau is not charged with the '* discovery, identification, and payment" 
of claimants until after the Auditor of the Treasury decides as to the 
legality of the claim and makes an awanl. 

As to the pension-claims, tlie names of officers necessarj' as witnesses, 
with their post-office address, will be furnished the Commissioner of 
Pensions ujtou his application. 

I am, general, verv respectfullv, vour obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 

Official copv : 

THOMAS M. VIXCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 
APRIL 20, 1874. 



Exhibit D" 

War Depar'tment, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Feeedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

^yashi>tgton, January 29, 1866. 
Bvt. Maj. Gen. E. D. Townsend, 

Assistant Adjutant-General., ^yashington, D. C: 
General: I have the honor to request the detail of Bvt. Brig. Gen. 
(Lieut. Col. and Bvt. Col.) B. P. Kunkle, United States Volunteers, for 
duty in this Bureau, to rei)lace an officer about to be mustered out. 
I am, verv respectfullv, vour obedient servant, 

0.0. HOWAED, 
Major-General, Commissioner. 
Official copv : 

E. D. TOWXSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 



Exhibit E". 

r Special Orders No. 40. — Extract.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, January 30, 1866. 



11. Bvt. Brig. Gen. B. P. Eunkle, lieutenant colonel Veteran Eeserve 
Corps, will report by letter to Major-General Howard, Commissioner 
Bureau of Refugees, &c., at Washington City, D. C, for assignment to 
duty in said Bureau, to replace an officer therein serving whose services 



293 

may be needed with his i)roper regiment and company, or whose command 
may have been mnstered out of service. 



By order of the Secretary of War : 
Official copy : 



E. D. TOWiN^SEND, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 

E. D. TOWNSEXD, 

Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit F'. 

No. 1. 

Board of Public Works, District of Columbia, 
Office Superintendent Streets, Avenues, and Alleys, 

Washington, D. C, April 27, 1874. 

Hon. Allan Rutherford, 

Third Auditor United States Treasury: 
Sir : As directed by the Hon. Secretary of the Treasnry, under date 
of March 31, 1871, I have the honor to transmit herewith for settlement 
a supplementary account pertaining to the refugees and freedmeu's 
fund growing out of moneys received from interest and premium on 
five per cent, bonds of the United States lield by me while chief dis- 
bursing officer of the Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands. I rendered this account to General O. O. Howard, Commis- 
sioner, at the time I was relieved, October 11, 1871. 
Very respectfully-, 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Late Chief JJishursing Officer Bureau B., F. and A. L. 

Treasury DEPARTiiENT, 
Third Auditor's Office, April 28, 1874. 

I certify that the within is a true copy of the original on file in this 
Office. 

ALLAN RUTHERFORD, 

Auditor. 



No. 2. 

Accouut-curreut of moneys received and expended on account of hounty-money invested in 
the new 5 2)er cent, loan by Brt. Brig. Gen, Georf/e TV. Balloch, chief disbursing officer 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



Date. 




Amount. 


Date. 




Amount. 


1871. 
March 20 


To advance interest to May 
1, 1871, on 5-20.S exchanged, 
gokl llUi 


1,5, 543 10 

3, 520 12 
21 


1871. 
Oct. 6 
Oct. 12 


By abstract of disburse- 
ments. No 1 

By transfer to General 0. 0. 
Howard, Commis'er, No. 2. 


$2, 223 11 


Aug. 1 


To three months' interest, 
pold lUJ 


6, 840 32 




Balance due me 












9, 063 43 


9, 063 43 



I certify that the above exhibits a true statement of all luoucys received, expended, 
and transferred on account of money invested in the new 5 per cent, loan hy me. 

G. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General, and Chief Disbursing Officer 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



294 
No. 3. 

Ahstract of disbursements made on account of moveys received frwi invest- 
ment of houniy funds in '^ new five per cent, bonds'''' by Bvt. Brig. Gen. 
George ^Y. Balloch, chief disbursing officer Bureau Befugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands. 



Date. 


No. 


1871. 




March 20 


1 


March 28 


2 


April 25 


3 


May 4 


4 


Sept. 19 


•) 


Oct. (i 






H. C. Percy, printing, &c 

J. H. Rankle, clerk 

John Dunn, reward for arresting \Vm. B. Wiggine 

James A. Small, clerk 

E. C. Beman, expenses 

Geo. W. Balloch, re-inibiirsement 



Amount. 



$86 90 
100 00 
200 00 
100 00 
80 50 
1,655 71 



2,223 11 



I hereby certify, on honor, that I have made the disbursements as 
stated, and the account is correct and iust. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbttrsing Officer 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

I hereby certify that I have examined the vouchers noted on the 
above abstract, and hereby approve the same. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Brigadier- General, Commissioner. 



Xo. 4. 



The United States to H. C. Percy, Dr. 

1870. 

Dec. 22. To bill for sundry services and expenses incurred for Second Auditor, 
as per bill rendered him September 23, 1870, and by him referred to 

General Balloch for payment $21 00 

To expenses for United States from August 1, 1870, to date, as follows : 

Case of Wright Hays — man to go to Suffolk; time and expenses 6 00 

Man to find Cassenda Hays and two witnesses 4 50 

One letter-copying book 2 50 

Telegram to Richmond 1 20 

Ca.'« of Cherry Reddick, finding witnesses and claimant 5 75 

Investigating Smith Cornick ease 3 50 

Five hundred envelopes, (official) 4 80 

Printing 2,000 receipts for bounty paid 4 50 

Postage paid. 6 00 

Car-fares 2 00 

Ferry-tickets 4 00 

Telegram from Second Auditor 90 

Examination of Louisa Harris case : 

Carriage four miles $2 50 

Guide 1 00 

Meal and ferriage 75 

4 25 



295 

Examination of Fauiiie Boggs case : 
1870. 

Dec. 22. Carriage at night, (late,) ten miles $6 00 

Gnide, $1 ; ferriage, 50 cents 1 50 

Boarding witnesses over Sunday .3 50 

Finding two witnesses 1 50 

|12 50 

Clerk copying testimony in last case for auditor 3 50 

Total 86 90 

Keceived paymeut. 

H. C. PERCY, 

Agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

A true co\)j: 

J. A. SLADEN, 

Brevet Captain United States Ami}/, Aide-de-Camp. 

March 20, 1871. 



No. 5. 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, D. C, March 28, 1871. 
Received of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing offi- 
cer, $100, in full for claim for services as clerk against the Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 
$100.] J. H. RUNKLE. 

A true copv: 

J. A. SLADEN, 
Brevet Captain United States Army, AiddeCamp. 



No. 6. 

Washington, D. C, September 9, 1870. 
Major W. L. Van Derlip, 

Disbursing Officer, Wilmington, Del. : 
Major : By direction of the Commissioner, you are hereby author- 
ized to expend a sum not exceeding $200 for the arrest and lodgment 
in jail at Wilmington of William B. Wiggins, late an agent of the Bureau. 
Very respectfully, &c., 

J. M. BROWN, 
Acting Assistant Adjutant- General, 
A true copy : 

J. A. SLADEN, 
Brevet Captain United States Army, A. D. C. 



The Vtuted States to John Dunn, United States marshal, Dr. 
1871. 
Feb. 13. For services rendered in the arrest of William B. Wiggins, as per order 

annexed |200 

1 certify that the above account is correct and just ; that the services 



296 

were rendered as stated, aud that they were necessary for the public 
service. 

W. L. VAN DEELIP, 
Brevet M({jor and Disbursing Officer. 

Keceived at Washington, D. C.,the 25th of April, 1871, from Bvt. Brig. 
Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing otiicer, the sum of $200, in 
full of the above account. 

(Duplicate.) JOHN BUNX. 



Xo. 7. 

The United States to James A. SmaU, Dr. 

1871. 
April 30. For services as clerk, Bureau Refugees. Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
at Washington, D. C, from April 1, 1871, to April 30, 1871, inclusive, 
being one uiontb , at $100 per month 

I certify*that the above account is correct and just; that the services 
were rendered as stated, and that they were necessary for the public 
service. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier-General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Received at Washington, D. C, the 4th of May, 1871, of Bvt. Brig. 
Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, the sum of $100, in 
full of the above account. (Paid in currency.) 

(Duplicate.) JAS. A. SMALL. 



No. 8. 

New Orleans, September 19, 1871. 
Heceived of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing 
oflicer, $80.50, that being the amount of the expense incurred by me in 
prosecuting the parties who defrauded me of the bounty due Charles^ 
Brown, Companv K, Seventv-sixth Colored Troops. 
$80.50.] ' ^ EDGAR C. BEMAX, 

Disbursing Officer for Louisiana. 



Xo. 9. 

2he United States to George W. BaUoili, Dr. 

For re-inibursement of moneys paid to the wrong claimants by myself and agents in 
the following cases since May 1, 1871 : 

1871. 

Oct. 6 Jobu Jones, Company B, First Cavalry $189 50 

Henry Anthony, Company K, Fourth Colored Troops 113 10 

Gus. Bell, Company G, Forty-eighth Colored Troops 239 75 

Henry Russell, Company A, Forty-seventh Colored Troops 239 75 

"" Mary Ann, widow of Wesley Johnson, Company H, One Hundred and 

Twenty-fifth Colored Troops 284 .59 

Charles Brown, Company K, Seventy-sixth Colored Troops 253 11 

Stephen Thornton, Company B, Sixty-second Colored Troops 192 70 

Richard Turner, Company B, Second Colored Troops - 223 50 

Moses Manoky, Company A, Fourth Colored Troops 126 55 

James H. Key, Company F, Fourth Colored Troops 77 75 

1,940 30 



297 

1871. • 

Oct. 6 * Less bounty of Mary Anu, widow of Wesley Johnson, Company H, 
One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Colored Troops, which should not go 
into this voucher, as the voucher for the second payment was ap- 
proved by the Hon. Secretary of War, and has been allowed me in 
the settlement of my accounts $284 59 



1, 655 71 



I certify on liouor thiit the above account is correct and just ; that the 
amounts were paid, as stated originally, to wrong claimants, though 
care was taken to guard the public interest. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Received at Washington, D. C, this 6th day of October, 1871, from 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing officer, $1,655.71, 
in full of the above account. (Paid in currency.) 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Brevet Brigadier- General and Chief JDisbursing Officer. 

District of Columbia, ss : 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of April, 1874. 
[SEAL.J JIS^O. H. COOK, 

Notary Public. 



No. 10. 

War Department, Bureau of 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Office Chief Disbursing Officer, 

Washington, D. C, October 12, 1871. 

Received of Bvt. Brig. Gen. George W. Balloch, chief disbursing 
officer, .$6,840.32, being balance of interest on account of the bounty- 
fund, (new 5 per cent, loan.) 
$6,840.32. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General, United States Army, Commissioner. 



No. 11. 
Explanation of Toucher No. 6. 

Case of John Jones, Company B, First Cavalry. 

The wrong party was paid in this case in January, 1868, and a dupli- 
cate voucher filed in the Treasury February, 1868 ; one voucher has 
been disallowed. I have mislaid the evidence in the case. 

Case of Henry Anthony, Company K, Fourth Colored Troops. 

This case was paid at Baltimore, Md., by E. H. Monteith, agent of the 
Bureau. 

The evidence goes to show that the certificate was issued on a fraud- 
ulent application ; that Mr. Monteith actually paid the party who filed 
the application, and I afterward furnished him money to pay the right 
claimant. I asked the Second Auditor to issue a new certificate, but 
he declined. (No duplicate voucher was filed.) 
20 H E 



I 

298 

Tlie case of Gus. Bell, Company G, Forty-eighth Colored Troops, and 
Henry Eussell, Company A, Forty-seventh Colored Troops, the vouch- 
ers and checks were sent to Vicksburgh, Mississipj)!, with some thirty 
more, toGeneral A.C.Gillem, AssistantCommissiouer, onhispersonal ap- 
plication. He detailed some officer of his stafit' (Lieut. Fields, I believe) 
to go to Lake City and pay claimants. He paid the wrong parties in 
these two cases, and I had eventually to pay the right parties, as when 
the claims came up both General Gillem and his officer were relieved. 
(No duplicate vouchers filed.) 

The case of Charles Brown, Company K, Seventy-sixth Colored 
Troops, was paid at New Orleans by Col. E. C. Beman, disbursing offi- 
cer. (See his letter annexed, and also his testimony before the Howard 
court of inquiry.) No duplicate filed. 

The case of Stephen Thornton, Company B, Sixty-second Colored 
Troops, was paid by Capt. Albert L. Anbin, assistant disbursing officer 
for Missouri. When the case came up. Captain Anbin was out of ser- 
vice and could not be reached. For orders for second payments see pa- 
pers on file in Freedman's Branch Adjutant-General's Oftice, No. 466, 
Chief Disbursing Office Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
volume B, 1871. No duplicate filed. 

The case of Eichard Turner, Company B, Second Colored Troops, was 
paid by me to the wrong i^arty on false identification. 1 had the party 
(Isaac C. Cooper) arrested, tried, and convicted, and sentenced to the 
Massachusetts State prison for three years. I paid the right claimant 
at Norfolk, Va. No duplicate filed. 

The case of Moses Manoky, Company A, Fourth Colored Troops, Avas 
paid in Baltimore by E. H. Monteith, agent of the Bureau, ou false iden- 
tification. The case was thoroughly investigated by Capt. E. C. 
Knower, U. S. A., and on his report I furnished Mr. Monteith funds to 
pay the genuine claimant. No duplicate filed. 

The case of James H. Key was ])aid in Baltimore by E. H. Monteith, 
agent, on false identification. The party who got the money, (George 
Demby,) and his accomi)lices, Ann Blacklock and Lewis Minor, were 
arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to the Maryland penitentiary 
for three years. 1 furnished Mr. Monteith funds to pay the genuine 
claimant. No duplicate filed. 



No. 12. 

Teeasttry Dpeartment, 
Office of Comptroller of the Currency, 

Washiiigton, Aiwil 25, 1874. 
General George W. Balloch, 

Washinf/fon, D. C. : 
Sir : Yours of the 24th, making inquiries of me in relation to the pay- 
ment of bounty due Charles Brown, Company K, Seventy-sixth United 
States Colored Troops, to the wrong party, has been received. 

The man who personated Brown, was, I believe, named Lewis Willis. 
I had him arrested, but afterward, npon the advice of my counsel, I 
released him, in order to use him as a witness against Shepard and Hill, 
the parties whom he alleged had instigated fraud, and received the 
inoney except five dollars. 

Hill and Shepard were brought before the recorder of the first district 
of New Orleans, who dismissed the case on the ground that he had no 
jurisdiction over the case. 



299 

I then had them arrested by the United States marshal and brought 
before the United States commissioner, but the United States district 
attorney (entered a nolle prosequi on the ground that no fraud had 
been committed against the Gov^ernment, but against me personally. I 
afterward received funds from you to pay the claimant, Charles Browu. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

EDGAR C. BEMAN. 



Exhibit G^. 

L'ecapititlation presenied by George JV. Balloch on list of claimant cases — (172.) 

Number of cases on both lists 172 

Number paid by General Ballocli by checks sent to agents of the Bureau. 163 

Paid by General Howard in same way 7 

Paid by Major Brown in same way 2 

172 

These cases were paid throng] i agents as follows : 

New Orleans, La., Maudeville, 10 ; other agents, 20 30 

Kentucky, Runkle, 81 ; other agents, 3 84 

Norfolk, Va 4 

Saint Louis, Mo 21 

Natchez, Miss, O. C. French G 

Onancock, Va 1 

Canton, Miss .• 1 

New Berne, N. C 2 

Jackson, Miss 2 

Baltimore, Md 2 

Little Rock, Ark 2 

Jacksonville, Fla 1 

Vicksbnrgh, Miss (> 

Helena, Ark 1 

Saint Nicholas, Md ;>> 

Savannah, Ga 1 

Wilmington, Del 1 

Johnsonville, Teun 1 

Clarksville, Teun 1 

Pulaski, Tenn 1 

Plymouth, N. C 1 

172 



Exhibit H^. 

Account-current of moneys received and expended on account of the irregular or retained 
bounty-fund from July 19, 18G5, to February 0, 1872, by Brt. Brig. Gen. George TV. Hal- 
lock, chief disbursing officer Bureau li., F. and A. L. 



1871. 






1865. 






Oct. 11 


Amount disbursed as per 
affidavit attached. 


1110, 767 85 


July 19 


Amount received from Col. 
0. Brown. 


$84, 334 81 




Aniouut transferred to 


1, 628 59 


Aug. 10 


Amount received from Capt. 


21,584 17 




Brig. Gen. 0. 0. Ho-«-ard, 






Horace James. 






Conimia.sioner. 




Nov. 1 
1866. 


Amount receiv(>d from in- 
terest on bonds. 


1,825 00 








May 1 


do 


2, 430 90 








Aug. 1 


Amount received from pre- 
mium on bonds sold. 


2, 164 50 








Aug. 1 


Amount received from R. 


57 00 




Total 






and F. fund. 
Total 






112, 396 44 


112, 396 44 









I hereby certify that the above is a true and correct account of moneys received and 
expended on account of the irregular or retained bounty-fund. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and Chief D. 0. 



300 

District of Columbia, ss : 

Persouallj^ appeared before me, a notary public in and for the District 
aforesaid, George W. Ballocli, late brevet brigadier-general, chief dis- 
bursing ofidcer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
who, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That from June, 1865, 
to October, 1871, he was the chief disbursing officer of said Bureau, and, 
as such, had custody of what was known as the irregular or retamed 
bounty-fund ; that he received on account of said fund the sum of 
$112,396.44 ; that he paid to claimants out of said fund the sum of 
$110,767.85 ; that he turned over to his successor. General O. O. Howard, 
the balance of said fund, amounting to $1,628.59 ; that the payments 
above referred to were made on proper vouchers, either by himself or 
through regular agents of said Bureau, or through attorneys holding 
legally-executed powers of attorney ;^that he rendered to the account- 
ing officers of the Treasury of the United States monthly accounts of 
such payments up to May, 1870, when he was directed not to render any 
more accounts of said fund, (as the same was not considered a public 
fund of the United States,) and to take away the vouchers already filed 
in the Treasury ; that he withdrew said vouchers, as directed, and left 
the same, together with other vouchers subsequently received by him, 
in his office in said Bureau when he was relieved, October 11, 1871, and 
he has not seen them since that time ; that there is a large record-book 
in possession of the War Department, which gives a full account of 
payments made by him from said fund, with the names of the claimants, 
amount paid each, and date of payment, &c. 

GEO. W. BALLOCH, 
Bvt. Brig. Gen. and late Chief D. 0. Bureau B., F. and A. L. 

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 23d day of April, A. D. 1874. 
[SEAL.] JNO. H. COOK, 

Notary Public. 



Note. — Exhibit B is here printed as an addenda to the other exliibits^ 
and is a facsimile of the original used in evidence. 

Exhibit B. 

united states of ameeica. 

War Department, 
Washington City, March 2, 1874. 

Pursuant to tbe act of Congress of the 22d February, 1849, I, William 
W. Belknap, Secretary of War, do hereby certify that the annexed 
copies of communications from the Secretary of War to the Speaker of 
the Honse of Eepresentatives of date December 4, 1873, and January 5, 
1874, respectively, with accompanying documents, are true transcripts 
from the records in this Department. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal 
of the War Department to be affixed, on the day and year first above 
written. 

[SEAL,] WM. W. BELKKAP, 

Secretary of War. 



[House Ex. Doc. No. 10, Forty-third Congress, first session.] 
BUREAU OF REFUGEES, FREEDMEN AND ABANDONED LANDS. 

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting to tlie House certain devel- 
opments connected with the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands. December 12, 1873. — Referred to the Committee on 
Military Affairs and ordered to be printed. 

War Department, 
Washington, D. C, December 4, 1873. 

Sir: In the course of business connected with the settlement of 
affairs, and paying unsettled claims, of the late Bureau of Eefugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, certain developments have been 
made, which I deem it proper, under the circumstances, to submit to 
the House of Eepresentatives for such action as may appear to be right. 

On the assumption of the duties by the Adjutant-General, under the 
act of Congress (General Nature, No. 133) approved June 10, 1872, 
and War Department General Orders No. 55, of 1872, there was no 
reason to suppose that such developments would be made ; hence no 
special search was made bearing upon them. But, as complaint after 
complaint was received that claimants had not received from the late 
Bureau their bounties, arrears of pay, &c., and the said complaints were 
referred, in the course of business, to the Second Auditor, with whom 
rested all settlement and the final adjustment of the accounts, it grad- 
ually became apparent that vouchers to a considerable amount were 
fi^Ied as if paid, and credit taken for the amounts, when strong proof 
was presented that the claimants had not been paid. And, in a similar 
manner, developments embracing other subjects called for consideration. 

From the incomplete and disordered condition of the records of the 
late Bureau, when received by the Adjutant-General, and from the fact 
that examination had also to be made in two offices of the Treasury 
Department to arrive at the true condition of certain accounts and 
claims, so much time elapsed that the trial of the late Commissioner, 
by general court-martial, became barred, in j)art, under the statute of 
limitation, before it was discovered that he was probably amenable to 



trial at all. Thougli it is true that he could now be brought before a 
military court ou some specific charges, yet, for the reason that they 
would be more or less dependent on transactions which are barred, the 
trial would hardly be productive of public benefit; and also, for the 
reason that the honorable House of Representatives has already ordered 
and had an investigation by a committee upon the affairs of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedraen and Abandoned Lands, I have deemed it best 
not to give the case to a military tribunal, but to submit it and the 
entire subject to the House of Representatives. 

The Department of Justice, however, has been furnished with some 
cases, and others are to follow, of apparent malfeasance, with a request 
to institute either criminal suit or civil suit to recover moneys belong- 
ing to the United States, or both suits, as may be proper, against such 
of the officers and agents of the late Bureau as may be liable. In this 
connection attention is invited to correspondence with the Attorney- 
General, found herewith, marked A. 

The late Commissioner, Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., has been 
promptly informed of the absence of important records, and of the ap- 
parent exhibits against him, with a view to his offering explanations 
and supplying the missing records. How far he has done this will 
appear by the correspondence pointed to in the reports. 

In one item, stated at upward of $121,000, (see heading 7,) not account- 
ed for, it will be seen that accounts cannot be produced, and no attempt 
has been made to i)rove what has become of the money. Accounts 
covering the amount, in part, are alleged to have existed, but the dis- 
bursing officer, George W. Balloch, has stated that " as they were not 
considered of much importance, they were not kept in the cases with the 
other accounts." The said accounts have disappeared, and it seems 
that neither the late Commissioner nor the late disbursing officer can 
account for their disappearance. This item is known as the " retained- 
bounty fund." 

As to the misapplication of public funds, (see heading 8,) the records 
are in evidence, and these irregularities and violation of law seemingly 
have had much to do with the confusion of records, their defective con- 
dition, and the almost entire suspension of work by the late Bureau. 

The responsibility and accountability attaching to the late Commis- 
sioner, so far as now developed, amounts to upward of $278,573.60, and 
may be stated under the following headings : 

1. — Claimed by colored claimants, who allege that they have not been 
paid their pay and bounty, although the records of the Treasury De- 
jiartment show settlement of the claims, and vouchers have been filed by 
tlie late Bureau as evidence of payment, $33,888.39. 

2.— Defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville, $8,503.29. 

3. — Defalcation of O. C. French, reduced to $3,841.54. 

4.— Defalcation of B. P. Runkle, $673.24. 

5. — Acknowledged, by George W. Balloch, to have been paid to B. P. 
Rankle " to re-im burse the latter for mistakes made by his agents in pay- 
ing bounties to the wrOng parties," $1,331.03. 

6. — Due by the late Bureau, in consequence of illegal double payments 
and certain accrued interest, several thousand dollars. 

7. — Irregular fund, (called retained-bounty fund,) under the act of 
March 2. 18 J7, (Stat. 14, page 145,) not accounted for, upwards of 
$121,000'. 

8. — Misapplication of public funds, and filing vouchers with the ac- 
counts covering a certain month, when i^ayments were made in a prior 
u.ont'j. 



Misapplication $36, 314 77 

Vouchers coveriug time subsequent to the actual date of 

payment and therefore erroneous 73, 048 40 

Total 109, 3G3 17 

The accompanying reports of the Adjntant-General, dated August 4, 
1873, and September 23, 1873, marked B and C, aud the report, dated 
October 3, 1873, herewith, marked D, of lus. Gen. E. Schriver, 
who made a critical examination of the records in verification of the 
Adjutant-General's reports, point in detail to the transactions exhibited 
in the above summary. War Department General Order No. 7, of 1873, 
promulgated the proceedings of a general court-martial in the case of 
Maj. B. P. Eankle, one of the agents of the late Bureau. 

Reference is also invited to Ex. Doc. 109, Forty-second Congress, 
third session, Mis. Doc. 87, Forty-second Congress, third session, and 
report of the Adjutant-General, dated February 20, 1873, and the letter 
transmitted to the House of Representatives February 28, 1873. Copies 
herewith, marked E, F, and G, respectively. 

I am, sir, with great respect, your oi3edient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 



Speaker House of Representatives, 



tSedretary of War. 



Washington, D. C. 



•\ 



A. 

War Department, 
Washington, D. C, May 31, 1873. 

Sir : I have the honor to refer herewith a communication from the 
Adjutant-General's Office, relative to complaints from claimants that they 
have not received from the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lauds their pay and bounty-money, although the records of the 
Treasury Department show settlement of their claims, aud vouchers have 
been filed by the disbursing ofhcers of the late Bureau with the Treasury 
accounting officers as evidence of payment. 

The Second Auditor of the Treasury has stated that evidence pre- 
sented to his office shows conclusively that certain of the claimants have 
been defrauded of their money, and that m some instances the receipts 
and vouchers upon which the' money is claimed to have been paid are 
false and fictitious, or procured upon fraudulent representations. 

Referring to the papers — A to F, inclusive — accompanying this, for a 
more complete statement of the facts, and in order to a practical under- 
standing by the Department of Justice of the entire subject, I have the 
honor to request your early opinion — 

1st. In cases where the guilty parties cannot be prosecuted, what 
should be the course in order to the protection of the interests of the 
Government and of claimants 1 

2d. When prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations, what 
action should be had I To what extent are the late Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen aud Abandoned Lands, and his chief 
disbursing officer, responsible °^ 

In this connection particular attention is invited to the case of O, C. 
French, already before the Department of Justice, and to the report of 



the Judge- Advocate-General of the Array, dated May 19, 1873, on a case 
covered by a letter dated April 28, 1873, from the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury. 

Very respectful! v, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
The Hon. Attorney-General, 

Washington, D. G. 
Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 



Department of Justice, 

Washington, July 3, 1873. 

Sir : I have duly considered your communication of the 31st of May, 
with the accompanying documents and papers, upon the subject of the 
frauds in the late Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands. 

The papers which you transmit me are, in many respects, incomplete, 
and i)articularly so in not including the bonds, or copies of the bonds, of 
the Commissioner of said Bureau, and of its chief disbursing officer, and 
I have been able to obtain but one of them. I think, however, that I 
have enough facts before me to enable me to answer the questions which 
you propose. 

The Freedmen's Bureau was established by the act of March 3, 1865, 
(13 Statutes, 507,) the material parts of which are as follows : 

By section 1 it is provided that — 

Tlie said Bureau shall be under the mauagemeut and control of a Comuiissiduer, to 
1)6 appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 
whose compensation shall be three thousand dollars per annum and such a number of 
clerks as may be assigned to him by the Secretary of War; * * * ^m\ h^q Com- 
missioner and the chief clerk shall, before entering upon their duties, give bonds to the 
Treasurer of the United States, the former iu the sum of fifty thousand dollars and the 
latter in the sum of ten thousand dollars, conditioned for the faithful discharge of 
their duties, respectively, with securities to be approved as sufficient by the Attorney- 
General, which bonds shall be filed in the office of the First Comptroller of the Treasury, 
to be by him put in suit for the benefit of any injured party upon any breach of the 
condition thereof. 

Section 3 provides for the appointment by the President, by and with 
the advice and consent of the Senate, of an assistant commissioner for 
each of the States declared to be in insurrection, not exceeding ten in 
number, "who shall, under the direction of the Commissioner, aid in the 
execution of the provisions of this act, and he shall give a bond to the 
Treasurer of the United States in the sum of twenty thousand dollars, 
iu the form and manner prescribed in the first section of this act ; 
* * * and any military officer may be detailed and assigned to duty 
under this act without increase of pay or allowances. The Commissioner 
shall, before the commencement of each regular session of Congress, 
make full report of his i)roceedings, with exhibits of the state of his 
accounts, to the President, who shall communicate the same to Congress, 
and shall also make special reports whenever required to do so by the 
President, or either House of Congress.*' 

By a resolution of March 29, 1867, (15 Statutes, 26,) it is provided 
" tbat all checks and Treasury certificates to be issued in the settlement 
of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored 



soldiers, sailors, or marines, * * * shall be made payable to the 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau." Section 2 enacts •' that the 
Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau shall be held responsible for 
the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the fund intrusted to 
him," and section 3 provides ''that all moneys held or disbursed under 
the provisions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the 
same rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the 
Army." 

The papers which you inclose to me show that considerable sums of 
money have been taken from the Treasury by officers employed in this 
Bureau by means of forged receipts and vouchers for bounties due col- 
ored soldiers, and by means of receipts and vouchers fraudulently pro- 
cured from them, and you ask my opinion upon two questions : 

First. In cases where the guilty parties cannot be prosecuted, what 
should be the course in order to the protection of the interests of the 
Government and of claimants? 

Second. When prosecution is not barred by the statute of limitations, 
what action should be had ! To what extent is the late Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, and his 
chief disbursing officer, responsible? 

Your questions are not quite so explicit as I could wish, and I am not 
certain whether by the word " prosecution " you refer solely to criminal 
l^roceedings against the offender, or to civil and criminal. For offenses 
of this kind it is open to the Government to proceed criminally against 
the offender and likewise to proceed in civil action against him, and 
against any person who is responsible for his acts. Where it is impos- 
sible to proceed criminally, either by the offender's having absconded, 
or the prosecution being barred by the statute of limitations, he may be 
sued in civil action, if it be deemed expedient, or if property of his can 
be attached. If, therefore, any disbursing officer or other officer or 
clerk employed by the Bureau has obtained money, in the methods men- 
tioned in your communication, from the Government, and it is thought 
best to sue him personally, the papers may be sent to the district at- 
torney of the district in which he resides or where he has property, for 
action. There is no statute barring the United States in civil actions. 

The late Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau gave no bond on his 
appointment in 18G5, because, as he informs me, Mr. Stanton, then 
Secretary' of War, did not think that the provision in respect of bonds 
was intended to api)Jy to the case of an officer of the Army detailed for 
duty under that act. After due consideration I find it impossible to 
concur in this opinion. The object of a bond is not to have the means 
of punishing a defaulter, but the protection of the Government from 
pecuniary loss, and this object is just as important in case of a military 
officer as of a civilian. A bond, however, given under the act of 1865, 
clearly would not cover loss of money paid to the Commissioner under 
the joint resolution of 18G7, but, by the third section of that resolution, 
all money paid or disbursed thereunder " shall be held and disbursed 
nnder the same rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers 
of the Army." This required the Commissioner to give a bond in the 
same manner that any disbursing officer of the Army would do. On 
the 31st of October, 1871, the Commissioner did give a bond in the sum 
of ten thousand dollars, the condition of which recites that he has been 
appointed " a special agent and disbursing officer of the Bureau of Ref- 
ugees," &c., and provides that he shall " henceforth, during his holding 
and remaining in said office, carefully discharge the duties thereof, and 
faithfully expend all j)ublic money, and honestly account for the same 



find for all public property Avliicb shall ormny come into his hands, on 
account of Subsistence and Quartermasters Department or of said 
Bureau, without fraud or delay." 

This bond was not given till four years after the appointment of the 
Commissioner to pay the claims of colored soldiers, under the joint reso- 
lution of 1SG7, and of course covers no default previous to its date. 
The form would seem to be one prepared for bonds of ordinary disburs- 
ing officers of the Army, and is a little ambiguous in designating the 
office and duties of the principal obligor. Eeference ought to have 
been made in the bond to the joint resolution. There is no provision 
requiring any other officer than those already named to give bonds, but 
it was perfectly lawful to take a bond from any subordinate officer of 
the Bureau, employed in the disbursement of money, direct to the 
United States, and such bond would have been valid and binding 
although not required bv statute. (United States vs. Hodson, 10 Wal- 
lace, 395.) 

Under the act of 1805, the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau 
would not, I think, be liable for moneys paid directly to the assistant 
commissioners and disbursed by them. The assistant commissioners 
were not appointed by him, nor were they his agents, but were Govern- 
ment officers, and by requiring bonds to be given by these officers, the 
statute would seem to have intended to relieve the Commissioner from 
liability for their acts within the limits of their several jurisdictions. 
But the joint resolution of 1807 is very explicit; all money paid under 
that act is paid directly to the Commissioner, and it is enacted that "he 
shall be responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of 
the fund intrusted to him." Nothing is said about any of the assistant 
commissioners, or about any disbursing officer, and although it was 
probably necessary, and undoubtedly was lawful, for the Commissioner 
to appoint and employ disbursing officers besides himself, nevertheless 
he is responsible, civilly, under this act for their acts, the same as if 
done by himself, and even if he took bonds from them directly to the 
Government, this cannot relieve him of such liability. The Government 
may enforce both securities in order to indemnify itself for any loss 
which through the default of a subordinate officer it may have suffered. 
This liability might, in some respects, be enlarged by the terms of the 
bond given by the Commissioner, but it of course could not be in the 
least diminished. 

The Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, therefore, is liable for 
all losses sustained by the Government thi'ough the default of a sub- 
ordinate disbursing officer, or other persons employed by him in the dis- 
bursement of the moneys intrusted to him under the joint resolution of 
1807. 

As to the chief disbursing officer, it is almost impossible, upon the 
facts which are now before me, to state what his liability to the Gov- 
ernment may be. Of course he is liable, both civilly and criminally, 
for his own misconduct. How far he is liable for the acts of subor- 
dinates employed under him is a question which it is impossible for me 
to answer without a copy of bis bond, and without more information in 
respect of his appointment and employment than I have been able to 
obtain from the perusal of the papers sent to me. If any other officers 
gave bonds to the Government, their sureties are liable for their miscon- 
duct, or loss occasioned by them, according to the tenor thereof. Fur- 
ther than this, upon the facts before me, I cannot answer. 

Your second question seems likewise to include the subject of crimi- 
nal in addition to civil prosecution. For acts of fraud or embezzlement 



under this act the oflfending^ parties are, of course, liable criniinally, 
uuless the offeuse is barred hy the statute limiting ordinary criminal 
prosecutions to two years. Any disbursing or other officer who has 
misappropriated money intrusted to him under this act may be indicted 
therefor, wliether he is appointed directly by the Government or is a 
subordinate officer or clerk, appointed by the Commissioner or any other 
officer of the Bureau. (United States vs. Hart well, 6 Wallace, 385.) 
Such prosecution must be by indictment, unless the offender is liable to 
trial by court-martial. By section 3 " any military officer may be detailed 
and assigned to duty under this act without increase of pay or allow- 
ances." It is sufficient for the present case to say that a military officer 
so detailed and assigned to duty still remains within military jurisdic- 
tion, and is liable to military law for any Tiolation of his duty as such. 

A more difficult question arises under section 3 of the joint resolution 
of March 29, 1807, whereby " all money held or disbursed under the 
provisions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same 
rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army." 
The language of this is a little obscure, when reference is made to the 
act establishing the Freedmen's Bureau, and this obscurity probably 
arises from the fact, of which I am informed, that all the principal offi- 
cers of the Bureau were military officers assigned to this special duty. 
I do not think that this provision can be considered as subjecting to 
trial by court-martial a person not otherwise subject to such jurisdic- 
tion. To have that effect an act ought to be clear and unambiguous, 
and it would only be by a most forced and violent construction that 
" rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army" 
can be interpreted to include liability to trial by martial law in respect 
of civilians. 

The " rules and regulations" governing disbursing officers would es- 
tablish the degree of responsibility and accountability to which the 
Commissioner would be liable, leaving his trial by civil or military tri- 
bunal to depend upon his civil or military status. This question, how- 
ever, if the facts be as I am informed, is of no practical importance. 

If, therefore, any military officer detailed for duty in the Freedmen's 
Bureau has been guilty of misappropriation of money, or any violation 
of the rules and regulations governing disbursing officers of the Army, 
he may be tried by court-martial in the same manner as any other such 
Army officer. 

Finally, I need hardly say that claim-agents and other persons not 
officers of the Government, who have obtained money ^rom the Bureau 
by means of forged receipts and vouchers and other frauds, can be 
prosecuted criminally if two years have not elapsed since the commis- 
sion of the crime, and can also be sued in the civil courts by the United 
States in the same manner as employes of the Bureau can be. 

As I have before said, there is no statute limiting the time within 
which the Government can begin a civil suit ; but suits for penalties 
and double damages under the act of March 2, 1863, must be begun 
within six years, (12 Statutes at Large, pp. 696-698.) 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GEO. H. WILLIAMS, 

Attorney- General. 

Hon. William W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 

Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



B. 

War Department, 
Adjutant- General's Office, 

August 4, 1873. 
Sir : I liave the honor to report that the administrative action of the 
Adjutant-General's Oifice has disclosed the following, involving the 
responsibility and accountability of the late Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands : 

Due colored claimants, 174 cases $;33, 888 39 

Bemarks. — This subject was referred to iu my reports of October 7, 1872, 
and February 20, 1873. 

Claiuiauts allege that they have not been paid their pay and bounty-money, 
although the records of the Treasury Department show settlement of 
their claims, and vouchers have been filed by the late Bureau as evidence 
of payment. Eighty of these cases are alleged to have been jiaid 
through the agent for Kentucky ; and, considering an extended inves- 
tigation, made by Assistant Inspector-General Baird, and the facts 
develo])ed before the court-martial for the trial of Major Runkle and 
Lieutenant Graham, there seems but little doubt as to the fraudulent 
character of the vouchers iu said cases. Of course as to cases involved 
in the specifications to the charges against the two officers, and whereon 
there was a finding of guilty, there can be no doubt. As to cases other 
than the Runkle-Graham, I am constrained to believe that the vouchers 
covering them will prove, under any test of investigation, in whole or 
in part fraudulent. They now stand as did the court-martial cases 
(Runkle-Graham) before the trial. Of course the late Commissioner is »^ 
entitled to a determinate investigation of some kind before the ques- ' 
tion of accountability is jjassed upon. 

The following acts of Congress appear to have been violated : Section 16, 
August 6, 1846, 9 Stat., p. 63. vSection 1, March 2, 1863, 12 Stat., p. 096. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Lists in the Second Aud- 
itor's Office and Adjutant-General's Office, (freedmen's branch.) Reports 
of Assistant Inspector-General Baird — final one July 17, 1872. Letter of 
Adjutant-General's Office, May 27, 1873. Opinion of the Attorney-Gun- 
ei'al, July 3, 1 873. 

Defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville 8,503 29 

Bemarhs. — A letter from the Secretary of War to the late Commissioner, 
dated March 10, 1873, in regard to this defalcation, has not been replied 
to. That letter called for a full report, with a list of the defrauded 
claimants, and invited attention to the fact that no papers showing the 
details of the matter had been transferred to the Adjutant-General of 
the Army. 

The following act of Congress ai)pears to have been violated : July 17, 
1862, 12 Stat., p. 593. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Letter of the late Com- 
missioner to the Hon. W. P. Kellogg, United Slates Senator, February 
18, 1870, and letter from the Secretary of War to the late Commissioner, 
March 10, 1873. 

Defalcation of O. C. French 6,841 54 

liemarks. — With view to recovering from French, the case is now before 
the Department of Justice. 

The following act of Congress appears to have been violated : July 17, 1862, 
12 Stat., p. 593. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Papers iu the freedraen's 
branch, Adjutant-General's Office, and others, with the De]3artmeut of 
Justice. 

Defalcation of Major Runkle 673 24 

Eemarks. — Action has been taken by the Treasury Department, with the 
view of securing the United States from certain pay due Major Runkle. 

The following act of Congress ajipears to have been violated : July 17, 
1862, 12 Stat., p. 593. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Papers in the Second 
Auditor's Office and freedmen's branch, Adjutant-General's Office. 

Amount acknowledged by General Balloch to have been paid Major 
Runkle " to re-imburse [the latter] for mistakes made by his agents in 
paying bounties to the wrong parties" 1, 331 03 



9 

Bemarhs. — This subject became known throngb the court-martial of Major 
Runkle. 

The followiug acts of Congress appear to have been violated : Section 1, 
January :U, 1823, 3 Stat., p. 723. Section 1, June 14, 1866, 14 Stat., p. 
64. Thirty-ninth article of war. Section 16, August 6, 1846, 9 Stat., p. 
63. Section 1, March 2, 1863, 12 Stat., p. 697. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Proceedings of the court- 
martial in case of Major Eunkle, and letter from General Balloch, No- 
vember .s, 1872, (9470 War Department, 1872.) 

Amount due by the late Bureau, in consequence of illegal double pay- 
ments and certain accrued interest : Several thousand dollars. 

Bemarks. — That such payments were made was ascertained by an investi- 
gation in September and October, 1871. Bonds amounting to .$2.'j0,000 
face value (cash value $280,000) were discovered to have been purchased, 
and it was explained by the late Bureau that the interest received from 
the bonds was used for making good losses incurred by the late Bureau 
through erroneous payments by its agents. The Secretary of the Treas- 
ury directed that the Second Auditor should recxuire General Balloch 
" to make a statement of the cost of the bonds referred to, and render an 
account of all the interest collected thereon ; also, to render an account 
of any pnyinents made to real claimants in cases where, by error or fraud, 
payments had been made to persons not entitled to the same." The late 
Bureau has not complied with that order. December 6, 1871, the Secre- 
tary of War, acting under suggestions from the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury, dated November 28, directed the late Commissioner to reconvert 
securities held by General Balloch into United States currency, and to 
pay the amount into the Treasury, not iuto the Refugees and Freed- 
men's fuud, but as a miscellaneous receipt, and to render an account, in 
detail, concerning the same. December 27, 1871, the late Commissioner 
replied, tliat he had already accounted to the Treasury for all interest 
collected upon United States bonds in his possession, and would make 
a report of the disposition of the whole fund as soon as the bonds could 
be reconverted. That reply was sent to the Treasury Department De- 
cember 30, but a report of the transaction has not been received at the 
War Department. The records, however, of the Third Auditor indicate 
that the Refugees and Freedmen's fund was credited with some in- 
terest, and therein, it is believed, there was an irregularity not sanc- 
tioned by law or other authority. Moreover, it appears from the Third 
Auditor's records that the bonds were sold for !f4, 856.88 less than cost, 
thus leading to other complications. It is to be noticed that although 
this subject started in the Second Auditor's Ofillce, it, in a way not ex- 
plained, has gotten into the Third Auditor's Office. 

The following acts of Congress appear to have been violated : Sections 16 
and 21, August 6, 1846, 9 Stat., i)p. 63, 6.5 ; section 2, June 14, 1866, 
14 Stat., p. 64 ; section 3, March 3, 1857, 11 Stat., p. 249 ; section 1, 
March 2, 1863, 12 Stat., p. 696. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Papers in the War De- 
partment, (7414 War Department, 1871 ;) records of the Treasury, (Sec- 
retary's Office and Second and Third Auditor's Offices;) and corre- 
spondence in freedmen's branch Adjutant-General's Office. ^ 

Irregular fund (called retained-bounty fund) under the act March 2, 1867, 

(14 Stat., p. 545,) including rents, interest, &c., upward of $121,000 00 

Remarks. — The late Commissioner has failed td render the accounts, sup- 
ported by vouchers, relating to this fund, as dii'ected by letter dated 
January 24, 1873, receipt of which was acknowledged by him January 27, 
1873. After a silence of near six mouths on the part of the Commissioner, 
aletter, dated July 14,1873, calling attention to the previous orders, was 
replied to July 22, 1873, and from that reply and the accompanying 
papers it appears that the required accounts and vouchers cannot and 
will not be rendered. It appears that the said fund was increased by cer- 
tain rents, and by interest on United States bonds, upward of $6,000, but 
definite and detailed information as to that increase has not been fur- 
nished ; nor does there appear on the part of the late Bureau a desire to 
furnish it. At least the orders of Secretary of War, and a special 
reference to the fund in a letter from me to the Adjutant-General of the 
Army, dated February 20, 1873, (a copy of which was furnished the late 
Commissioner,) have not brought that prompt and willing report and ex- 
planation which the importance of the subject demands. In the letter 
of February 20, 1873, it was asked, why, at least, was not a statement 
submitted, showing: 1. Total amount of said fund received. 2. Amount, 



10 

if any, of increase throngh investment in United States bonds. 3. The 
distribution, if any, for the benefit of the said soldiers, (those referred to 
in the act regulating the fund,) or their lawful x"epreseutatives. 4. The 
total amount paid out. As the late Bureau holds, in its reply of July 22, 
that the Treasury Department had not to do with the fund, and that in no 
sense was it public money, but a private matter entirely, reference may 
be had to the act, section 2, of March 3, 1817, (5 Stat., page 366,) enact- 
ing that * * * it jj]l accounts whatever, in which the United 
States are concerned, either as debtors or creditors, shall beadjusted and 
settled in the Treasury Department." Section 2 of the act of March 2, 
1867, directs that "any portion of said fund which may remain unex- 
pended when the said Bureau shall cease to exist, shall be accounted for 
by said Commissioner (or his successor in office) to the Treasury of the 
United States." Through the requirements of that section the United 
States have become "concerned" as "debtors," and the language of 
the section, in itself, is sufficient to determine the public character of the 
fund, in so far as its accountability is concerned. The fact of Congress 
legislating in regard to it made the United States liable, and it was not 
necessary that the act should enact the manner in which the fund should 
be accounted for. That portion unexpended — the balance — is a result of 
calculation, based on receipts and disbursements, and the evidence of 
the two elements must exist, and be in the hands of the accounting offi- 
cers, before they can determine the " portion " to be, under the law, 
turned over to them. But, further, thelate Commissioner's " successor in 
office," the Secretary of War, is, under the act of June 10, 1872, (War De- 
partment General Order 55, of 1872,) the person who is finally to pay 
over the balance of the fund to the Treasury, and, to do that, he must 
have the means (accounts and vouchers) to show what the balance is. 

Independently, however, of all law, there is a precedent determined 
under General Orders 305, War Department, series of 1864. The fund 
covered by the requirements of that order was, in all respects, similar to 
the fund now being considered, and it has been duly accounted for to 
the Treasury accounting officers. The former fund, for all purposes of 
accountability, became public money by an order of the Secretary of 
War ; the latter became so by an act of Congress. It is alleged that the 
Second Comptroller decided the fund was not to be accounted for to the 
Treasury. Be that as it may, (the assertion requires verification,) the 
accounts and vouchers should now be forthcoming, in order to account 
for it to the Secretary of War. There is no doubt that some portion of 
the accounts were once presented to the Treasury — Third and Second 
Auditors. As presented to the Second Auditor, they were withdrawn by 
General Balloch May 25, 1870. Balloch has recently stated in regard to 
them that " as they were not considered of much importance, they were 
not kept in the cases with the other accounts." He admits that he kept 
them in his own office, and states that he left them there when he was 
relieved. The late Bureau has not accounted, and it would seem cannot 
account, for their disappearance. 

The following acts of Congress appear to have been violated : Section 2, 
March 3, 1817, 3 Stat., p. 366 ; July 17, 1862, 12 Stat., p. 593 ; section 16, 
August 6, 1846, 9 Stat., p. 63 ; section 21, August 6, 1846, 9 Stat., p. 65 ; 
section 3, March 3, 1857, 11 Stat., p. 249. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Files and correspondence 
in freedmen's branch Adjutant-General's Office, and report 121, Forty- 
first Congress, second session. 

Misapplication of public funds, and filing vouchers with the accounts cov- 
ering a certain mouth, as paid within that' month, when payment had 
actually been made in sx jiri or nxonth, upwards of $14,964 28 

EemaHs.— The examination in regard to this has not yet been concluded ; 
the irregularities, however, seem well ascertained from the records. A 
more complete report will be made when the examination in progress 
shall have been concluded. 

The following acts of Congress appear to have been violated : Thirty- 
ninth article of war ; of 1868, 15 Stat., pp. 35,36; sections 5 and 7, 
July 12, 1870, 16 Stat., p. 251 ; section 1, March 2, 1863, 12 Stat., p. 696. 

Reference may be had to the following records : Cash-book of the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in the freedmen's brauch 
Adjutant-General's Office, and accounts of said Bureau in the Third 
Auditor's Office ; letter of Adjutant-General to the Secretary of War, July 
14, 1873, referred to General Howard, and reply of latter, July 22, 1873. 

Total involved in the accountability and responsibility, upwards of 187, 201 77 



11 

It is proper to add tliat the deficit of $3,754.69, referred to in my re- 
ports dated October 7, 1872, and February 20, 1873, has been paid over 
by the bite Bureau to the Treasury. 

The vouchers filed in the Treasury covering the $31,078.03, and up- 
ward, referred to in my report dated October 7, 1872, have been can- 
celed by the Treasury officers. (See letter from the Second Auditor, 
September 4, 1872, Ex. Doc. 109, Forty-second Congress, third session.) 
Very respectfully, general, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant- General. 

The Adjutant-General of the Army, 

Washington^ D. C. 

This report, prepared in obedience to instructions from the Secretary 
of War, is respectfully submitted. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 
Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



C. 

War Department, 
Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington^ I). C, September 23, 1873. 

General: Eeferriug to my communication of the 4th ultimo, relat- 
ing to the responsibility and accountability of the late Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, I have the 
honor to report that the investigation in the matter of misapplication 
of public funds, and of the filing of vouchers with accounts for a cer- 
tain month when the disbursements represented by such vouchers had 
actually been previously made, has been completed, and to submit the 
following statements as exhibiting the result. 

In my communication of July 14, 1873, and in that first above re- 
ferred to, the amount involved in the disbursements in question was 
stated as being upward of $14,964.28, which statement was based 
upon the cash-books and other records of the late Bureau pertaining to 
the appropriations made by Congress. 

The investigation, however, has disclosed the fact that the records 
referred to are incorrect, and therefore not reliable. 

According to said records and the accounts (as stated) in the Treas- 
ury Department, (Statement A,) no disbursements were made in pay- 
ment of expenses of the Bnreau from January 1 to March 24, 1871, but, 
upon examination of the vouchers rendered to the accounting officers, 
it appears that during the interval of said dates accounts amounting, in 
the aggregate, to $49,199.55 (Statement B) were in fact paid. Of this 
amount $47,807.57, unless obtained from private sources, must, of ne- 
cessity, have been drawn from the moneys held for the payment of 
claims of colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal representa- 
tives, and which were legally applicable to that purpose only. 

The vouchers representing these disbursements all purport, in the 



12 

abstracts and statements, to have been paid on or subsequent to Marcli 
24:, 1871. Tlie date of actual i)aymeut is fixed by tlie date of check 
drawn in settlement. 

Kot until the 24:th of March, 1871, did the Bureau receive from the 
Treasury the amount ($127,000, Statements A and B) appropriated to 
supply deficiencies, and from which the above-mentioned expenses were 
properly payable. Early in May, 1871, (Statement B,) this sum was 
exhausted, and the Bureau had no funds with which to defray expenses 
from that time until July 22, 1871, on which date it received the amounts 
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872,-althoug'h between 
those dates it actually expended (Statement B) $25,240.83. 

Tlie appropriations ($165,500) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, 
were made for specific purposes, viz, "for the collection and payment of 
bounty, prize-money, and other legitimate claims of colored sohliers and 
sailors," ($87,500,) and "for support of Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum 
at Washington, D. C," ($78,000.) 

As stated in my communication of July 14, among the items of dis- 
bursements from those appropriations were several for schools and 
asylums, amounting, in the aggregate, to $28,424.42. This amount has 
been increased in the sum of $600, by the discovery of a voucher for 
that amount, which was charged on the records to " medical appropri- 
ations," when, in fact, it was for materials purchased for a school-house 
at Fayetteville, K. C, in 1870, and reduced in the sum of $33.75, being 
amonnt charged to " schools and asylums, which should, in fact, have 
been charged to medical appropriations;" thus showing the total amount 
expended, on account of schools and asylums, from these appropria- 
tions, to have been $28,990.67. 

In addition to the sura expended for schools and asylums, there was 
also expended from the aforementioned appropriations the sum of 
$20,918.54, for various purposes, thus making a total of $49,909.21 
(Statement C) on account of expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871. 

The legitimate expenditures (Statement C) were as follows : 

For collection and payment of bounty, $62,740.88. 

For support of hospital, (medical appropriation,) $73,625.98. 

The receipts, exclusive of appropriations by Congress, were (186,- 
284.24— $165,500) $20,784.24, (Statement D.) Of that amount only 
$13,460.14 (Statement E) was, in my opinion, available for the pay- 
ment of expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871, and, if this judg- 
ment be correct, the total expenditures ($28,990.67) for schools and 
asylums, as well as ($20,784.24— $13,460.14) $7,324.10 for other objects, 
were without warrant of law ; and, therefore, the question as to whether 
steps should be taken to recover the amount is naturally presented. 

Submitted herewith are the tabular statements (A to E) herein referred 
to. Tbey fully explain in detail — and, viewed in connection w ith the fore- 
'^oing facts, go far toward explaining and fixing the responsibility for the 
uperfect condition of the Bureau records — a matter to which my report 
f October 7, 1872, (Ex. Doc. 109, H. K., Forty-second Congress, third 
.session ,)iu P^irt related, and which led to the reply of Generel O. O. How- 
."ird, <i is. Doc, 87, Forty-second Congress, third session,) addressed to 
fch*"!- iC'irmau of the Military Committee of the House of Representa- 
fi (Uintl 'nier date of February 7, 1873, and to my subsequent letter of 

Eeferetf' "^ ' ^'^'"-*- 

of RU- am thus led to say that it seems to me, had the appropriations 

Adjutn Congress been legitimately applied, the work of the late Bureau 

14^*18-'^ e progressed regularly, and arrangements been made for the 

' " m of at least the more important portion of the records relat- 

Total i, 



13 

iug directly to tlie financial operations. Instead, however, the operations 
of the Bureau were, in March, 1872, almost wholly suspended ; very near- 
ly the entire force of clerks and agents was discharged; the local offices 
were closed ; the payment of bounties, &c., virtually ceased ; and claim- 
ants, who had already waited long and anxiously for their money, were 
forced to undergo the hardship of further delay. This condition of 
affairs did not result, as stated by the late Commissioner in his letter 
above referred to, " by failure of appropriation," but, on the contrary, 
from a misapplication in i^art of ample appropriations made by Con- 
gress for the conduct of the work in question. 

The discharge of the clerks and the " want of clerical aid after the 
appropriation was exhausted " resulted from the misapplication. 

Therefore, the question involved is not one of policy, but of laiv, and 
its direct violation. 

I respectfully invite attention to the official records upon which are 
based the statements I have herein made. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Asst. Adjutant- General. 

The Adjutant-General of the Army. 

Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Asst. Adjutant- General. 



a. — Disbursements made hy the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeii and Abandoned Lands, 
from January 1 to July 31, 1871, as stated in accounts rendered hy the disbursing office to 
the Treasury Department. 



Dr. 










Ck 


Date. 




Amount. 


Date. 




Amount. 


1871. 
Mar. .31 
Apr. 30 
May 31 
Juue 30 


To amount of abstract 

do 


192, 709 45 
12,771 12 
10, 2IG m 
10, 109 57 
2, 084 98 


Jan. 1 
Mar. 24 

Mar. 24 

July 1 
July 1 

July 22 


By amovint on hand 

By amount received on 
draft 818, war-warrant 
610 


$1, 391 98 


do 




do 


127 000 00 




To amount due United States . 
Total 


By amount received on 
draft 55, July, 1871, not 
paid 






128, 491 98 

42, 492 13 
134, 118 06 


100 00 




To amount of abstract 

To amount due United States. 

Total 


Total 




July 31 


128,491 m 


By amount on band 

By amount received for 
one week's board in 






o 084 98 




176, 610 19 








6 00 . 




By. amount received on 
draft 2149, war- warrant 
1995 


173, 919 2li 




Total h 






i: < 610 19 1 









* ofi: 

ent 01 
esen ta- 



in the 



14 



B. — Disbursements made ly the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Alainloned Land 
from January 1 to July 31, {compiled from vouchers rendered to the Treasury Department,) 
as they should have heen stated to the Treasury Department. 



Dr. 



Cr. 



Date. 



1871. 


Jan. 


31 


Feb. 


28 


Mar. 


23 


Mar. 


24 


Mar. 


31 


Apr. 


30 


May 


31 


June 


30 


July 


21 


July 


22 


July 


31 



To amount of abstract 

To aniouut of abstract 

To amount of abstract 

To amount duo officer 

To amouut of abstract 

To amount of abstract 

To amount of abstract 

To amount of abstract 

To amount of abstract 

To amountdne officer 

To amount of abstract 

Tobalancedue United States 



Amount. 



124, 706 60 
8,018 59 
16, 474 36 



49, 199 55 



47, 807 57 
43,509 90 
32, 271 94 
15, 996 26 
10, 109 57 
2, 645 59 



152, 340 83 


25 


240 


83 


14 


566 


32 


134 


118 


06 



173, 925 21 



Date. 



1871. 
Jan. 1 
Mar. 23 



Mar. 24 

July 21 

July 31 
July 22 



By amount on hand. . . 
By amount duo officer 



By amount received on draft 
818, war- warrant 610 

By amount received on draft 
55, July, 871, not paid 

By amount due officer 



By amount received for one 
week's board in hospital. . 

By amount received on draft 
2149, war-warrent 1995 



Amount. 



11,391 98 

47, 807 57 



49, 199 55 



127, 000 00 



100 00 
25,240 83 



l.'>2, 340 83 



6 00 
173, 919 21 



173, 925 21 



C. — Analysis of dish ursements from appropriation for support of the Bureau of Eefuyees, 
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1672, made from 
vouchers as filed in the Treasury Department. 



Date. 



July 

August. ... 
September. 
October — 
November . 
December.. 



January . . 
February. 

March 

April 

May 

June 



Total. 



Expenses in- 
curred prior 
to July 1, 
1871. 



137, 696 42 

9, 637 88 

353 67 

1,137 30 

132 00 

555 63 



67 00 
25 31 



49, 909 21 



Medical, 

1872. 



$1, 683 09 
5,089 19 

10, 569 80 
7,031 54 
7,896 45 

12, 182 32 



7, 776 96 

6, 208 73 

3, 727 52 

6, 035 87 

2, 535 81 

2, 888 70 



73, 625 98 



Collection and 
payment of 
bounty, 1872. 



$3, 112 62 
7, 355 87 • 
7, 098 64 
5, 987 94 
7,095 12 
7,311 96 



6, 125 90 
2, 627 74 
.5,841 36 
4, 765 54 
3, 155 96 
2, 262 23 



62, 740 88 



D. — Receipts of late Bureau Refugees., Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
July 1, 1871, to June 30, 1872. 

Amount ou hand July 1,1871 $2,684 98 

Amount received during July, 1871 *173, 925 21 

Amount received during September, 1871 62 80 

Amouut received during October, 1871 889 08 

Amount received during January, 1872 100 00 

Amount received during Marcb, 1872 1,878 44 

Amount received during April, 1872 2, 461 05 

Amount received during May, 1872 1, 039 18 

Amount received during June, 1872 3, 243 50 

Total 186,284 24 

*The following are the items that make up this sum : 

Appropriations for 1872 $165, 500 00 

Balances of a])propriations for previous years 8, 419 21 

For one week's board received from patient in hospital 6 00 

Total 173,925 21 



15 

E. — Receipts in the year ending June 30, 1872, that might projyerly be used 
to defray expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871. 

Amount on hand July 1, 1871 $2,684 98 

Amount received during July, 1871 8, 419 21 

Amount received during September, 1871 62 80 

Amount received during October, 1871 889 08 

Amonnt received during March, 1872 - 44 

Amount received during April, 1872 ' 349 45 

Amount received during May, 1872 =, 1,039 18 

Amount received during June, 1872 15 00 

Total , 13,460 14 



D. 

Washington, October 3, 1873. 
Sir : I have the honor to present herewith remarks, which show the 
result of an examination into the subject-matter of the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral's reports of August 4 and September 23, 1873, to the War Depart- 
ment, relative to certain transactions in the late Freedmen's Bureau, 
referred to me for report by the Secretary of War. 
Very respectfully, sir, your obedient servant, 

ED. SCHRIVER, 

Inspector- General, 
The Hon. Secretary of War, 

Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



BeniarJcs on a report made hy the Adjutant-General of the Army to the Secretary of War 
dated August 4, 1873, relative to certain matters in the administration of the late Freed 
men's Bureau. 

1. The statement that, up to the date of the report, 174 colored soldiers claim sums 
due them for pay and bounty, amounting to $33,888.39 in the aggregate, vouchers for 
the payment of which have already been filed in the Treasury Department, is sustained 
by satisfactory evidence. Although payments in some of the cases may have been 
erroneously made, there are good reasons for believing that many of the vouchers filed 
are fraudulent. Some having already been proved to be so by a judicial iuA^estigatiou, 
the whole are tainted, and the Treasury Department will doubtless suspend all of 
them. Unless those concerned in these transactions can satisfactorily demonstrate 
their innocence of intent to defraud the United States Government and the claimants, 
they should be proceeded against for violation of the provisions ot section 16 of the act 
of August 6, 1846, and of section 1 of the act of March 2, 1863. 

An examination of the vouchers referred to, and purporting to have been paid prior 
to October 11, 1871, shows one, and only one, agent in the payment, viz, George W. 
Balloch, denomiuated chief disbursing officer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and 
Abandoned Lands. Those alleged to have been paid between October 12, 1871, and 
February 5, 1872, inclusive, have the name only of O. O. Howard, Commissioner, &c. 
After the latter date there are a few vouchers in the name of J. M. Brown, chief dis- 
bursing officer ; but this kind \^as discontinued after March 1, 1872, as irregular, and 
thenceforward, until June 30, 1872, the vouchers are in the name of O. 0. Howard, per 
J. M. Brown, chief disbursing officer. 

Although the act of March 3, 1865, which established the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
meu and Abandoned Lands, required the Commissioner jirovided for therein to give a 
bond in the sum of $50,000, conditioned for the faithful discharge of his duties, one 
was not given by General Howard, the axipointee. 

On the 20th June, 1865, General Howard, Commissioner, &c., in Special Orders No, 
14, required George W. Balloch aforesaid, a volunteer commissary of subsistence re- 
tained in the Freedmen's Bureau, in addition to his duties in the Subsistence Depart- 
ment, to " temporarily jierform the duties of chief disbursing officer of this Bureau." 



16 

A resolution of Congress datecl 29tli Marcli, 1867, requires all Treasury certificates 
issued in the settlement of colored soldiers' claims for pay, bounty, &c., shall be made 
jiayable to the Commissioner of the Freedmcu's Bureau, who is to be held responsible 
for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of this fund intrusted to him. As this fund 
was to be " held and disbursed iinder the same rules and regulations governing other 
disbursing officers of the Army," (see the terms of the act,) a bond of .iJI(),000 (now 
believed to be defective somewhat) was given, but not until 31st October, J 871, four 
years after this pay and bounty fund was put into the possession of the late Commis- 
sioner. 

Prior to 12th October, 1871, when General Howard relieved Balloch of the duty, this 
large fund was held and disbursed by Balloch, who rendered accounts therefor to the 
Treasury. My greatest surprise in connection with this subject is that the Treasury 
officers should have accepted the accounts from Balloch, who was not known to the 
law at all. As well might a paymaster's clerk presume to render accounts for dis- 
bursements by a paymaster of the Army. While I do not doubt that Balloch may be 
held to account for any misconduct in connection Avith this matter, I am quite cei'taiu 
General Howard can and should be held as responsible by the United States for any 
portion of this fund not pi'operly accounted for by Agent Balloch, as for that disbursed 
by himself after he relieved Balloch. And unless there is a clear case of fraud, which 
may be readily fixed upon its perpetrator, and on a person able to restore misapplied 
funds, I think it not advisable to go beyond the party known to and made responsible 
by the law in any efforts to secure the rights of the United States and of any colored 
claimants who have suffered. 

2. "Defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville." 

It appears that this agent of the bureau, acting at New Orleans, for Chief Disbursing 
Officer Balloch, died suddenly 28th October, 1857. The deficit in funds put into his 
bauds to iiay the bounty, &c., due colored soldiers in Louisiana is, as far as ascertained, 
$8,503.29. Although the papers which could throw light on this case are known to 
have been in tlie Freedmen's Bureau, and ought, therefore, to have been transferred to 
the Adjutant-General's Office with the other records, they have not been received, 
although specially called for. In their absence it cannot be ascertained to ivhat extent 
the cases embraced in this Mandeville transaction are co luectedwith the one hundred 
and seventy-four cases hereinbefore referred to ; but there is conclusive evidence that 
they are of the same character, and that fraud has been practiced. There are ten of 
those cases, amounting to .§2,076.75, which purport to have been paid through Mande- 
ville, and an additional one which was the subject of a recent special communication 
from the Secretary of War to the late Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, dated 
March 10, 1873. Mandeville's sureties have been sued, but as they resist the claim, the 
matter is in abeyance. Be the result of the suit what it may, the late Commissioner 
is, in my opinion, responsible under the law for any loss due to Mandeville's defalca- 
tion, which is a violation of the act of July 17, 1862. 

3. ''Defalcation of 0. C. French." 

This amount is stated as $6,841. .54, the existing evidences of which being with the 
Department of Justice, with a view to the prosecution of French and his sureties, no 
examination has been made into the case by me, satisfied that whatever the result of 
the suit for recovery may be, the late Commissioner is responsible to the Government 
for any loss which may ensue from the violation of the a'ct of July 17, 1862. I may 
mention that some time in the last past mouth three tliousaud dollars of the sum 
deficit were paid into the Freedmen's Branch by one of the sureties. 

4. " Defalcation of Runkle." 

To recover $673.24, a loss growing out of Runkle's defalcation, and violation of the 
act of July 17, 1862, the Treasury Department has taken steps. As in the preceding 
cases, the late Commissioner is responsible. 

5. "Amount paid by Balloch to Runkle to re-imburse him for mistakes made by 
agents in paying bounties to wrong parties." 

This sum is stated to be §1,331.03. Balloch admits the allegation in his letter of No- 
vember 8, 1872, to the Secretary of War, and thereby acknowledges that ho violated 
the provisions of section 1 of act of January 31, 1823, which forbids an officer from 
making advances of money intrusted to him; of section 1 of the act of June 14, 1866, 
which requires that funds intrusted to him shall be de^^osited properly, and drawn aa 
required; and of thirty-ninth article of war, which forbids misapplication of funds 
intrusted to him. 

Balloch admits, in his testimony in the Runkle court-martial, that he received vouch- 
ers for payments which he knew Runkle had not made in fact. By subsequently using 
them as genuine in rendering accounts to the Treasury Department, he was guilty of 
a violation of section 16 of the act of August 6, 1846, and of section 1 of the act of March 
2, 1863. 

6. " Illegal double payments — several thousand dollars." 

Balloch has admitted such payments have been made, and that the means of making 
the second ones to real claimants were derived from the interest that he collected 



17 

from Uuited States bonds iu wliicli the pay and bounty fund bad been illegally in- 
vested ; 1st. On the occasion of an investigation made by Inspector-General Scbriver, 
by order of the Secretary of war, iu 1871 ; 2d. In bis reply of October 11, 1871, to the 
Second Auditor of the Treasury, letter of October 6, 1871, calling on Balloch " to make 
a statement of the cost of the bonds referred to, and to render an account of all the 
interest collected thereon ; and also to render an account of any payments made to real 
clainuints iu cases where, by error or fraud, payments had been nuxde to persons not 
entitled to the same," as follows: 

" Hon. E. B. Fkexch, Second Auditor : 

" Sir : In reply to your letter of October G, in relation to the cost of bonds held by me 
as disbursing officer of this Bureau, theamount of interest received on same, and any pay- 
ments made to bounty-claimants erroneously, which I have been obliged to pay again, 
I would submit the following statement : 

" 1. The cost of the bonds, $-2.50,000, at 111 | : $279, 37.5 00 

2. The amount of interest received on these bonds 3, 520 12 

3. Payments made as per inclosed statement 3, 041 71" 

In the Adjutant-General's report it is stated that the late Bureau has not complied 
with that order, such infonnation having been derived from the Second Auditor. la 
the course of my investigation, however, Balloch's letter above was discovered on 
the record, but the " inclosed statement " (3d item) of payments referred to therein does 
not appear. The (u/f/regate paid is only given as an item. The details of it are wanting. 
But the Second Auditor says that Balloch's letter aforesaid has not been received at 
his office. Be this as it nuxy, it is sufficiently clear that Balloch has in this transaction 
violated sections 1(3 and 21 of the act of August G, 1846, and section 2 of the act of June 
14, 1866, and section 3 of the act of March 3, 1857. 

Connected with this matter is the reconversion of these bonds into currency bj^ the 
late Commissioner, iu compliance with orders from the Secretary of War of Decem- 
ber 6, 1871. ' 

When directed to pay into the Treasury, as " miscellaneous receipt," the proceeds of 
these bonds, and to render an account iu detail coucerniug them, the late Commissioner 
replied, on 27th December, 1871, that he had already accounted to tiie Treasury for all 
interest collected upon the bonds in his possession, and would make a report of the 
whole fund as soon as the bonds could be reconverted. Though no I'efereuce is made 
to it therein, there is found iu the late Commissioner's reply of the 27th December an 
"account-current of moneys received and expended on account of bounty-money in- 
vested iu the new five per cent, loan by Chiet Disbursing Officer Balloch," certified as a 
true statement by O. O. Howard, Brigadier-General U. S. A., Commissioner. 

H. Ex. 10 2 



18 



> C-. O O -H 



t- X O CO T-< 



c; — I o 



:^ o cz 



— t-i ^ CI 



^^ 






■5— >iS 
'=^^2 9 
"StI flirt 






o 



c c o 

■Ism 

^ - K. 

I? - a 
°§3 



S a a m 



1 - '' ? ^ 
S 3 ^'1 £ 

a ^'^^ '(■ 

g a a t| Q> 5 

" '■^ 5 











. 
















ft 


a) 






<1 



















^ 






rn 
















—1 








t= 




'^ 





oT 




r-" 




3 


H 


Tr 




3 







r^ 


ct 









u 


U 


> 



















ij 





H^ 







:; 


- 9 


o 














a 


01 


c 


s 






M 


i^'o 









>j 


C^« 


M 






a 




.5° 


« 






a'-t 


S A " t ^ 




g52| 


i.5 — £ a 



w a 









<< »aO 



g o^ 
•S p H 

_ o cS 

a ° S 
_ - 2 t--2 
c »^x a o 50 

c^rS * 2'3 
r?--- ti « a 



=* o 

O M 



t. ce g 






3 <5o 



a i 

=-1-3 •' 

=a .K| 

s ^ 



o < 

w-g- 



19 

Although the statement to the S'econd Auditor, copied on page 17, is dated 11th', and 
this accouut-cuiTent (A) is dated 12fch October, it will be seen that the several items 
specitied therein differ, so that the discrepancies are irreconcilable : 

October 11. October 12. 

Interest received $3,520 12 $9,063 22 

Double payments made 3,041 71 1,736 00 

Miscellaneous 486 90 

At the date of the Adjutant-General's report, it was not known that the late Com- 
missioner had, on 22d January, 1872, made the statement about the reconversion of 
bonds promised in his letter of December 21, 1871. It was discovered in the course of 
this investigation, and as the first entries in it are identical with those in Balloch's 
account-current of the 12th October, (hereinbefore referred to, and marked A,) it is in- 
ferred that it is a correct statement, and that that of the 11th October is not a correct 
one. The detailed statement.claimed to have been inclosed in Balloch's letter of the 
11th October seems necessary, however, to a proper understanding of the subject. 

In General Howard's statement it is written that the proceeds of the bonds, includ- 
ing interest, have been deposited in the Treasury, and the gain has been taken up and 
accounted for to the Treasurer. Leaving the examination as to the correctness of the 
figures in the statement with the Treasury officers, I content myself with remarkiug 
that, instead of depositing in the Treasury, as a " miscellaneous receipt," the interest, 
as ordered by the Secretary of War, it was credited to the refugees and freedmen^s 
fund. This is seen from General Howard's letter of July, 1872, to the Third Auditor. 
And in his report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872, General Howard reports the 
refugees and freedmen's fund exhausted, the Avhole sum received from August 31, 1871, 
until June 30, 1872, ($10,400.84,) having been expended for schools. 

7. " Irregular fund," (called retained-bounty fund,) under the act of March 2, 1867. 

Its amount is stated $121,000 ; but there is no means of verifying it, because the ac- 
counts connected with the fund have not been turned over to the Adjutant-General, 
and because no finnl statement has been made to the Treasury. The late chiet dis- 
bursing officer, G. W. Balloch, says he sent accounts of disbursements, with vouchers, 
to the Third Auditor up to April, 1867, and afterward continued to render the accounts 
to the Second Auditor until (he thinks) Juh/, 1868, when he made no more, and foofc aii'rty 
those before filed, because of a decision made by the Second Comptroller, which ex- 
empted the disbursing officer from accounting to the Treasury for disbursements of 
this fund. When called on to produce these accounts, Balloch reported that he " left 
all these papers in the place where they were kept in the office, and has not seen them 
since." The Second Auditor reports the withdrawal from his office of accounts from 
December, 1865, until February, 1869, on 25^/i, May, 1870. Comj^are this date with the 
date of removal given by Balloch. 

When it is remembered that these accounts were for a period of more than three 
years, and therefore of considerable volume, it is difficult to believe that they, and 
their duplicates, which must have been retained, are all lost or misplaced, and that 
their non-production when called for specially by the Secretary of War is not designed 
to prevent a disclosure of some irregular or illegal proceedings. Equally incredible is 
it that the Second Comptroller made the decision which it is alleged he did, in the 
face of the requirements of the acts of June 15, 1866, and of March 2, 1867, specially 
applicable to this fund. Bui the Second Comptroller denies that he made such decision. Be 
this as it may, it surely cannot free the late disbursing officer from the consequences 
of defalcation and of a non-compliance with the requirements of laws governing the 
disbursement of public moneys. 

It may be proper to mention that a memorandum about this and other funds con- 
nected with the Freedmen's Bureau, found among its records, shows that of the 
$96,801.88 (retained bounty) on hand June 9, 1866, $71,600 were in United States 7.30 
bonds, in Balloch's hands, although the act authorizing investment therein was not 
passed until March 2, 1867. 

It is unnecessary for me to remark on this portion of the Adjutant-General's report 
further than to express my satisfaction with the correctness of the statements as well 
as with the arguments employed, and the conclusions arrived at from their considera- 
tion in connection with the laws applicable to the case. 

The delinquent should be proceeded against. How far the late Commissioner may 
be responsible ultimately for any deficit in this fund is left to be determined by the 
proper officers of the Treasury Department. 

8. " Misapplication of public funds and filing vouchers with the accounts covering a 
certain month, as paid within that month, when payment had actually been made in 
a prior month." 

The sum involved in this was stated to be upward of $14,964.28 in the Adjutant- 
General's report of the 4th August, 1873, but subsequent and more thorough examina- 
tion since that date shows — 



20 

1. 'Tliat the office data ou which the statenieut was based are iucorrect, and that the 
sum is really niuch laif^er. 

2. Tliat fuuds only designed by law for certain specific objects have been applied to 
other purposes. 

3. That moneys appropriated for the expenses of one fiscal year have been expended 
in another. 

The presentation at the Treasury of vouchers with accounts to which they do not 
properly pertain was occasioned by the irregularities above stated, the specification of 
which being fully set forth in the Adjutuut-General's report of September 23, it is un- 
necessary to repeat herein. There is evidence sufficient, in my opinion, to establish 
the allegations, and the fact of violations of the thirty-ninth article of war, of the acts 
of February 12, 1868, (section 2,) and of July 12, 1870, (sections i and 7.) 

The views contained in the report as to theeti'ect that this particular misapplication 
of funds had on the operations of the Freedmeu's Bureau, its records, &c., during the 
last few months of its existence, and the suggestion that measures be adopted to re- 
claim, if possiljle, the sums which seem to have been iflegally expended for schools 
and asylums aud other ol»jects, are deemed just and proper, and are therefore con- 
curred in by me. 

Respectfully submitted. 

ED. SCHRIVER, 
Inspector-Genera 1. 

Washington City, October 3, 1873. 

The Honorable Secretary op War. 

Official: 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



E. 

[House Ex. Doc. No. 109, Forty-second Congress, third session.] 
CONDITION OF AFFAIRS OF THE FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. 

Letter from, the Secretary of War., in answer to a resolution of the House 
of Representatives of JDeeemher 3, 1872, transmittinf/ a copy of the report 
of Assistant Adjutant- General Vincent on the condition of affairs of the 
Freedmen^s Btireau. 

[January 18, 1873. — Referred to the Committee ou Military Affairs and ordered to be 

printed.] 

War Department, 

Washingtoti, D. C, January 11, 1873. 

The Secretary of War lias the honor to submit to the House of 
Eepreseiitatives, in answer to the resolution of December 3, 1872, the 
report of Assist. Adj. Gen. Thomas M. Vincent "on the condition of 
the affairs of the Freedmen's Bureau," and to state that as the report 
was submitted for the advice aud guidance of the Department, action, 
as to certain points, has necessarily been based on it. Therefore, it is 
proper that the report should be accompanied by the correspondence 
(letters and indorsements, A to W) under which certain results have 
been developed. 

Further, as connected with the subject, the final general report, with 
a supplementary one (X, with indorsement, and Y) of the Commis- 
sioner of the late Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmcn and Abandoned Lands, 
are appended. 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 



21 

War Department, 
Adjutant-Genei?al',s Office, 

Washington, D. C, October 7, 1872. 

Sir : War Departineut General Orders No. .55, dated June 25, 1872 — herewith, marked 
1 — promulgated the act of Congress approved June 10, 1872, discontinuing the Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, and directed that from and after. Jiiue 
30, 1872, the business of the discontinued Bureau should be conducted through the 
Adjutant-General of the Army. 

The orders conveyed by your letter of June 27, 1872, assigned me to the "immediate 
supervision and charge of the duties lately devolving" on the said Bureau, with direc- 
tions to " look to the arrangement of the records and distribution of the duties, so that 
there will be the least delay in the future transaction of the business, with the view 
of completing and closing it." 

On the date of my instructions, I conferred with the Commissioner in order to the 
transfer of the records, accounts, claims, checks, Treasury certificates, property, &c., 
and designated to him the place for delivery to your charge. June 28, the transfer, 
from Howard University to a building near the War Department, was commenced, and, 
on or about August 3, completed, when the circular herewith, marked 2, was promul- 
gated. That circuhir explains itself, and marked the course for disposing of the j^rose- 
cntion of claims for bounties or otlier moneys due to colored soldiers and others. 

August 8, War Department General Orders No. 79 — herewith, marked 3 — announced 
the regulations " for the discovery, identification, and payment of the claimants " * 

* * "for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, 

sailors, or marines, or their legal representatives, now residing or who may have 
resided in any State in which slavery existed in the year 1860." 

September 2, the places of payment were promulgated by circular — herewith, 
marked 4. 

September 7, final instructions to the disbursing officers were promulgated by circu- 
lar — herewith, marked 5 — and the re-established business,, known as the freedmen's 
branch of the Adjutant-General's Ofiice, stood arranged as follows: 

1. Miscellaneous. — 1. Commissioner's division. — Embracing the records of the ofiice 
pj-oper of the late Commissioner. 

2. Claims division. — Embracing the records of claims of colored soldiers, sailors, and 
marines, or their heirs, prosecuted by the late Bureau ; also the records bearing upon 
contested or fraudulent claims. 

3. Educational division. — Embracing the records of the educational work performed 
by the late Bureau. 

4. Archive division. — Embracing the records of the late assistant commissioners of 
States. 

II. Disbursing vivii^io'S, or chief disbursing office. — Charged with all matters relative 
to payments under the act of Congress approved March 29, 1867 — herewitli, marked 6. 

The force employed at present under the foregoing arrangement is: 8 commissioned 
ofiBcers, 22 clerks, 10 messengers and janitors, (for eight offices.) The records, when 
delivered, were found to be in a state of much confusion; the books and files of the 
difiijreut offices being promiscuously intermingled, the desks full of papers belonging 
to the files, and the files themselves in general disorder. Especially was this the case 
^ith the records of the archive division; the books and papers of one State being 
mixed with those of other States, and with those of other divisions of the office. Many 
and important papers, covering dates from the organization of the Bureau to the date 
of its discontinuance, some of them containing soldiers' discharge-papers, had been 
placed on the files and in various places, seemingly at the then present convenience 
of the persons having them in charge, without being recorded in the books of the office, 
and, consequently, without any means by which they could be referred to; and it is 
found, by the experience already had in tbe search for information, that in many cases, 
particularly in the claims division, no proper record was made of the action had on 
l)apers passing through the Bureau. It was also discovered that important papers are 
missing from the files ; of the transfer therefrom there is no record evidence. 

One "Letters Sent" book,* covering time from December 11, 1869, to September 1, 
1870, with its index, belonging to the claims division, is missing ; it was not transferred 
to this office. 

The records of the assistant con: missi oners of the several States, and of local agents, 
are found to be very imperfect ; and there is good reason to believe that many of the 
agents of the late Bureau, both State and local, have retained possession of a part or 
the whole of the records of their late offices. 

Several hundred letters of recent date had never been recorded, many of them 
unbriefed, while a portion bore certain notations indicating action. 

In the claims division, which was an important branch of the Freedmen's Bureau, 
the work was much in arrears, no papers having been entered in the books subsequent 

* Since procured by General Howard. 



22 

to March 14 of tlie current year, and little or no business transacted sinoe the 1st of 
January last. 

About one thousa7}(l papers were left for the action of this ofiSce, the lai'ger portion of 
AS'hich were to he briefed and entered, and were of an important character, relating to 
soldiers' claims liled by the Bureau, and to contested fraudulent claims referred by the 
Second Auditor for investigation by Bureau agents. There was also an accumulation — 
some thousands — of soldiers' discharge-papers, these haviug been sent by the Second 
Auditor, on the settlement of a claim, to the Bureau for delivery, through its agents, 
to the soldiers, or if deceased, to their legal representatives. 

The number of unpaid claims transferred is 4,8.^8, amounting in the aggregate to 
$730,596.80 : the amount transferred for their payment, .$726,842.11, leaving a deficit 
yet to be accounted for of $3,754.69. This deficit was promj)tly reported to the Secre- 
tary of War, with whom rests future action. The Treasury certificates issued in set- 
tlement of the unpaid claims mentioned above, are shown by the records to have been 
received at the Freedmen's Bureau at various dates, extending back to May, 1867. 

In addition to the sum of $726,842.11, as stated above, there is the sum of $31,078.83,* 
transferred as being due to certain claimants home upon the records as paid, and with 
which amount the accounts of the late disbursing officer of the Bureau have proba- 
bly been credited at the Treasury. 

Complaints have been made that claimants have not received from the late Bureau 
their bounties, arrears of pay, &c., although the Treasury accounts of the Bureau dis- 
bursing officer show payment to have been made, and there is reason to believe that 
claimants have been defrauded extensively of the said moneys. 

From claims presented to this office, it is known there are outstanding debts against 
the late Bureau, but the nuiuber, or the amount covered, cannot be stated, no record 
or list having been received. 

In the future the most laborious and important duty will be that of paying claim- 
ants. If the business was to be conducted anew in all its parts, the new regulations 
hereinbefore referred to would enable the Adjutant-Geueral to dispose of all cases as 
rapidily as settled by the accounting officers of the Treasury, thus preventing an accu- 
mulation of unpaid claims. But, as 4,8.58 claims have fallen to the office as unfinished 
business, it follows that there must be some delay as to future payments, and, conse- 
quently, clamor on the part of claimants. This clamor will, in part, be incited by 
agents, who, by their attempts at fraud on the claimants, have increased the caution 
necessary to full protection. Such grasping, fraudulent attempts, however, have been 
anticipated by the laws and regulations, and while cantion will lead to more time in 
preparation for payment, aud cause the agents to chafe, the claimants in the end will 
be content with the protection afl'orded, although at the cost to them of some delay in 
obtaining their just and legal dues. 

Very resj)ectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Asbistaiit Adjutant- General. 

The Adjutant-General of the Akmy, 

IVaxh'nifjton, T). C. 



No. 1 

!(Jeneral Orders No. .'55. J 

War Uei'artment, Adjutant-General's Ofeice, 

Washington, June 25, 1872. 
I. Pursuant to the provisions of the " act [General Nature — No. 133] making appro- 
priation for sundry civil expenses of the Government for the fiscal year endiug June 
30, 1873, and for other purposes," appi'oved June 10, 1872, the Bureau of Kefugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands will be discontinued from aud after June 30, 1872, and, 
after that date, all business relating in any way to the said Bureau — exclusive of the 
Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum at Washington — with all the accounts and claims con- 
nected therewith, of whatever character or date, or whensoever incurred, will be con- 
ducted through the Adjutant-General of the Army, to whom all the records, checks, 
and Treasury certificates, (received umler section 1 of the act of March 29, 1867,) or the 
amounts received therefrom, aud all other funds, papers, and property, will be deliv- 
ered by the 1st of July proximo, at such place as the Adjutant-General may desig- 
nate. 

* This amount has since been increased to 131,915.86, and will be further incieased under the exami 
nation now in proji'ress. 



23 

II. After Juue 30, 1872, all business relating in any way to the " Freednieu's Hospi- 
tal and Asylum at Washington, D. C," with all the accounts connected therewith, of 
whatever character or date, will be conducted through the Surgeon-General of the 
Army, to whom all the records, papers, funds, and property will be turned over by the 
1st of July jiroximo. 

III. The Adjutant-General and Surgeon-General will arrange promptly for the exe- 
cution of this order, and, after the transfer, submit for the action of the Secretary of 
War such regulations as may be necessary for the future transaction of the business. 

Agents, clerks, and other employes, whose services may not be reiiuired by the Adju- 
tant-General and Surgeon-General in effecting the transfer, will be discharged June 
30 ; all others as soon as the transfer shall have been completed. 

IV. The following are the portions of the act of Congress under which the foregoing 
is ordered : 

''Be it enacted In/ the Senate and House of Bepresentatires oftlie United States of America 
in Conf/ress assembled, That the following sums l>e, and the same are hereby, appropriated, 
for the objects hereinafter expressed, for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, eighteen 

hundred and seventv-three, viz : 

*. * " * s * * 

"For collection and payment of bounty, prize-money, and other legitimate claims of 
colored soldiers and sailors, viz : For salaries of agents and clerks ; rent of offices, fuel, 
and lights; stationery and printing; office furniture and repairs ; mileage and trans- 
portation of officers and agents, telegraphing and postage, one hundred thousand dol- 
lars : Brovided, That the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands shall be 
discontinued from and after June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and seventy-two, and 
that all agents, clerks, and other employes then on duty shall be «lischarged, except 
such as may be retained by the Secretary of War for the purposes of this proviso ; and 
all acts and parts of acts pertaining to the collection and payment of bounties, or other 
moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs, shall remain in 
force until otherwise ordered by Congress, the same to be carried into effect by the 
Secretary of War, who may employ such clerical force as may be necessary for the 
l^urpose. 

" For the support of Freedraen's Hospital and Asylum at Washington, District of 
Columbia, viz : Pay of medical officers and attendants; medicines, medical supplies, 
and rations; clothing; rent of hospital buildings, fuel, and lights; repairs and trans- 
portation, seventy-four thousand dollars : Brovided, That no part of said appropriation 
shall be used in the support of or to pay any of the aforesaid expenses on account of 
any persons hereafter to be admitted to said hospital and asylum, unless persons re- 
moved thither from some other Government hospital : Brovided, That after June thirtieth, 
eighteen hundred and seventy-two, the Freedmen's Hospital, in the District of Colum- 
bia, shall, until otherwise ordered by Congress, be continued under the supervision and 
control of the Secretary of War, who shall make all estimates, and pass all accounts, 
and be accountable to the Treasury of the United States for all expenditures." 

By order of the Secretary of War. ' 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- J eneral. 

Ofi6cial : 

Thomas M. Vixcext, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



No. 2. 

[Circular.] 

War Dki'akt.ment, Ad.iutvnt-Genkral's Offick, 

IVasliington, August 3, 1872. 

Sir : I have to inform you that, pursuant to the provisions of War Department Gen- 
eral Orders No. 55, of 1872, (copy herewith,) the business and records of the late Bureau 
of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, exclusive of the Freedmeu^s Hospital 
and Asylum at Washington, have been transferred to this office. 

The business, so far as relates to the " co/Zec^iort * * » of houniies or other moneys 
due to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or tlieir heirs," will be disposed of by this office 
in the following manner, viz : 

1. Under the laws no claims of any character can be received for prosecution. All 
claims, of whatever character, filed in the late Bureau prior to .June 30, 1872, and not 
yet forwarded to the accounting or pension offices, will be transmitted by this office to 
the proper officer. 

In all such cases, and in all 2)endiuf/ claims filed through the Bureau, wherein addi- 



24 

tional evid&uce is required, the auditing officers aud Commissioner of Pensions are 
requested to communicate directly with the claimants, as this office is not authorized 
by existing laws, eren had it the facilities, to act as the agent of the claimants. 

2. Additional evidence furnished by or through the late Bureau agents, aud all other 
evidence now on lile in this office, will be forwarded to the proper Departments or 
offices as soon as practicable. Calls from the Dejiartments, or offices, for evidence in. 
cases not acted on by the late Bureau, will be transmitted, in turn, to the claimants, 

■with instructions to communicate thereafter directly with the office, or offices, in which 
their claims are pending. 

3. All information required by the accounting offices from the records of the late 
Bureau, in regard to chiims settled or pending, will be furnished at the earliest prac- 
ticable date after a call therefor shall have been received. 

4. The ^^ discovery, identification, and payment of the claimants^^ under the provisions of 
the resolution (Public, 25) approved March 19, 1867, (copy herewith.) " in reference to 
the collection aud payment of moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or 
their heirs," will be continued under regulations to be fixed upon, at au early date, 
hereafter. 

Very respectfullv, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 
Official : 

Thomas M. Yixcent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 

Second Auditor, Commissioner of Pensions, and others. 



No. 3. 

[Geucial Orders No. 79.] 

War DErAKT:\ii'.NT, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, August 8, 1872. 
Pursuant to the provisions of tlie act of Congress approved June 10, 1872, promul- 
gated in War Department General Orders No. fiS, of 1872, and under the transfer, di- 
rected by that order, of the business qf the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands, exclusive of the Freedmen's Hospital and Asylum at Washington, 
to the Adjutant-General, the following regulations are promulgated "/or the discovery, 
identification, and payment of the claimants" for » * » "pay,l)Ounty, 

2)rize-money, or other moneys due to co^orjd soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal repre- 
sentatives, now residing for who may have resided, in any State in ivhich slavery existed in the 
year eighteen hundred and sixty." 

I. A chief diybuising office will be established in the Adjutant-General's Office at 
W^ashington, D. C, with disbursing offices at Louisville, Ky. ; Saint Louis, Mo. ; Nash- 
ville and Memphis, Tenu. ; Vicksburgh and Natchez, Miss. ; New Orleans, La. 

Payments to claimants in Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia will be made through 
the Washington office ; in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, aud Florida, and 
States wherein slavery did not exist, by officers who will be temporarily assigned to 
that dutj' ; and in all other States through the disbursing offices hereinbefore enumer- 
ated. 

II. The payments, &c., will be governed by the following requirements of the resolu- 
tion (Public, No. 2.'3) " in reference to the collection and payment of moneys duo colored 
soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs," approved March 29, 1867. (War Depart- 
ment General Orders No. 53, i867.) 

1. The agent or attorney, in all cases, will be paid " his lauful fees and expenses" 
through the Washington office. After such payments the " balance" due the claimants 
will be held subject to order, on satisfactory identification. 

2. No " balance" shall be paid to any person except the claimant, or, if deceased, his 
or her legal representative. 

3. No " power of attorney, transfer, or assignment" of the " balance," or any part 
thereof, will be recognized or allowed. 

4. When the claimant shall have been properly identified, the "balance" due shall be 
2)aid in current funds, and not in checks or drafts. 

5. The Adjutant-General, his assistants, and the disbursing officers will facilitate, as 
far as possible, the " discovery, identification, and payment of the claimants." 

6. Besides the " affidavits of two credible witnesses that he is the identical person," 
(see section 2, act July 20, 18(30, War Department General Orders No. 02, of 1866,) the 



25 



claimant will be subject, under information to be supplied by the Adjutant-General, 
to a special examination as to his identity. 

7. " In settling with the agent or attorney of the claimant, strict compliance with 
the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of the joint resolution approved June 
26. 1866, (War Department General Orders No. 62, of 1866, page 4,) entitled ' Joint 
resolution amendatory of a joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers, and 
the pensions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs/ approved June 1.5, 1866, will in 
every case be required and enforced." 

The said scale is as follows : 

" For the preparation and prosecution of claims for * * all sums not 

exceeding fifty dollars, the sum of five dollars ; for all sums exceeding fifty and 
less than one "hundred dollars, the sum of seven dollars and fifty cents ; and for all 
sums exceeding one hundred dollars, the sum of ten dollars. And said fees shall in- 
clude all expenses incident to the collection of said claims, except the expenses of the 
necessary af6davits and notarial or other acknowledgments, which shall be defrayed 
by the claimant." 

And the same law further directs that " any agent or attorney who shall charge, di- 
rectly or indirectly, in any case a greater sum for his services in preparing and prose- 
cuting said claims'; * * shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and 
shall, upon conviction, be punished by fine not exceeding three thousand dollars, nor 
less than one thousand dollars, and shall be forever excluded from prosecuting military 
or naval claims against the Government." 

8. Advances or loans, so called, by an attorney or agent will not be recognized. 

9. All money held or disbursed by disbursing ofiicers shall be held and disbursed 
under the same rules and regulations governing other disbui-siug officers of the Army. 

III. The chief disbursing ofiicer shall receive all checks and Treasury certificates 
issued in the settlement of claims, under the aforesaid joint resolution, approved 
March 29, 1867, and collect from the Pay Department of the Army the amounts called 
for thereby, keeping a full, clear, and permanent record of the same. 

He shall arrange and classify the checks and certificates so collected, in order to 
determine the office, or offices, through which payments are to be made to the 
claimants, preparing full and complete lists, with all necessary information, the same 
to be transmitted,' with his check for the amount thereof, to the proper disbursing 
officer. 

IV. The disbursing officers shall keep complete records, under a f<u-m to be pre- 
scribed by the Adjutant-General, of all moneys received by them and of all payments 
made. 

Immediately upon the receipt of the lists and checks referred to in Par. Ill, they 
shall arrange' for prompt payments to the claimants, first notifying each, by letter, 
when and where to appear, with the means necessary to identification. 

V. The Adjutant-General will prescribe the necessary forms, and call for such lists, 
returns, &c., as, over and above the accounts and returns falling under the rules and 
regulations governing disbursing officers, may be necessary to a *[iecific knowledge, at 
all times, of the entire business. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

E. D. TOWNSEXD, 

Aitjnlant-General. 
Official: 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



No. 4. 
[circulak.] 

War Department, Adjutant-Generals Office, 

Washington, September 2, 1872. 

It is hereby announced, in connection with paragraph 1, War Department General 
Orders No. 79, of August 8, 1872, that payments to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, 
or their legal representatives, will be made at the following places : 

Washington, D. C. — To claimants in the counties of Virginia contiguous to Washing- 
ton ; Montgomery, Prince George's, Charles, and Saint Mary's Counties, Maryland, and 
the District of Columbia. 

Baltimore, Md.— To claimants in the State of Delaware, and the counties of the State 
of Maryland not otherwise provided for. 

Bichmond, Ta. — To claimants in the State of Vii-ginia who can most conveniently 
reach this jjoint. 

Norfolk; Va. — To claimants in the counties of Wicomico, Somerset, and Worcester, 



26 

Maryland ; the counties of the Eastern Shore, and southeastern portions of Virginia, 
and the northeastern counties of North Carolina. 

Goldshoroiifjh, N. C. — To claimants in the eastern, southeastern, and central counties 
of North Carolina. 

Clutrhsfon, S. C. — To claimants in the State of South Carolina, within a radius of 
eighty miles. 

Savannah, Ga. — To claimants in the eastern, central, and southedstern counties of 
Georgia. 

Louisville, Ky. — To claimants in the counties of the States of Kentucky and Indiana 
contiguous to Louisville. 

Lexington, Ky. — To claimants in the counties of northeastern and eastern central 
sections of Kentucky, and the southern tier of counties of Ohio. 

Bowling Green, Ky. — To claimants in the western and southern counties of Ken- 
tucky. 

Cairo, 111. — To claimants in the western counties of Kentucky ; southwestern coun- 
ties of Indiana; southern counties of Illinois, and counties of the southeastern section 
of Missouri. 

Saint Louis, Mo. — To claimants in the counties of Missouri and Illinois contiguous to 
Saint Louis, and within a radius of sixty miles in Missouri. 

Jefferson. City, Mo. — To claimants in the central counties of Missouri. 

Leavenworth City, Kans. — To claimants in the northwestern and western central coun- 
ties of Missouri, and the eastern section of Kansas. 

Quincy, III. — To claimants in the northeastern counties of Missouri ; the counties of 
Illinois, contiguous to C^uincy, and the southeastern counties of Iowa. 

Kno.rville and Chattanooga, Tenn. — To claimants in East Tennessee, and also pay at 
Chattanooga to claimants in the northern and northwestern counties of Georgia. 

Pulaski, Tenn. — To claimants in the counties contiguous to Giles County, Tennessee, 
within a radius of lifty miles. 

Huntsrille, Ala. — To claimants in Northern Alabama. 

Xanliville, Tenn.— To claimants in the counties east of the Tennessee Kiver, and in 
Benton County west of said river. 

Memphis, Tenn. — To claimants west of the Tennessee Eiver, except Benton County, 
and to those in northeastern section of Arkansas ; also to those in north and north- 
eastern counties of Mississippi, except counties more convenient to Helena, Ark. 

Helena, Ark. — To claimants in the eastern central counties of Arkansas, and of coun- 
ties bordering on or near the Mississippi River, both in States of Mississippi and Arkan- 
sas and contiguous to Helena, Ark. 

Little Bock, Ark. — To claimants in the central counties of the State. 
Vicksburgh, Miss. — To claimants in the parishes of Louisiana north and east of the 
Red River, except Catahoula, Tensas, and Concordia ; the central counties of Missis- 
sippi, and those contiguous to Vicksburgh. 

Greenville, Miss. — To claimants in the southern counties of the State of Arkansas, and 
counties in Mississippi contiguous to Greenville. 

Natchez, Miss. — ToclainuTuts in the southern and southwestern section of Mississippi, 
with the exception of the counties of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson ; also the parishes 
of Catahoula, Concordia, and Tensas, La. 

Baton Bouge, La. — To claimants in the parishes of Avoyelles, Point Coupee, Saint 
Landry, Iberville, East and West Baton Rouge, and East and West Feliciana. 

Donaldsonville, La. — To claimauts in the parishes of Saint Martin's, Assumption, Ascen- 
sion, and Saint Jameis, La. 

Neic Orleans, La. — To claimants in the counties of Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson, 
Miss., and all parishes of the State of Louisiana not otherwise provided for. 

Claimants will be duly notified by the proper disbursing officer when to appear, and 
they are advised to await such notification before proceeding to the place of payment. 

E.D.TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 

Official : 

Thomas M. Vincext, 

Assistant Adjutant-General . 



. No. 5. 
[circular.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, September 7, 1^72. 

To Disbursing Officers : 

Major: With reference to pai'agraph 6, Special Orders No. lOG, dated War Depart- 
ment, Adjutaut-Geueral's Office, August 23, 1872, assigning you as disbursing officer, 



27 

freedmen's brauch Adjntaut-Geueral's Office, with station at , I liave the honor 

to inform you that I have this day forwarded by express one set of records for your 

use, consisting of — 

*°* # # * * * 

Also one copy of " Instructions for keeping the records and transacting the clerical 
business of the War Department," which will govern, so far as applicable to the records 
necessary to be kept by you. 

Also the following blanks : [Forms 2 to 22, inclusive.] 

Also one set of General Orders of the War Department, so far as the same pertain to 
" the discovery, identification, and payment of claimants " for * * » " pay, bounty, 
prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, or marines, or their legal 
representatives, now residing, or who may have resided, in any State in which slavery 
existed in the year 1860." These embrace all the orders or circulars issued up to the 
present date. 

Payments will be made by you at such place or places as will, from time to time, be 
designated by this office. 

If there be no Government buildings at suitable for the purpose, you are 

authorized to make, subject to approval, written agreements (in quintuplicate) for rent 
of an office upon the most reasonable terms possible. This office will consist of not 
more than three rooms. The rent, therefore, as well as all other expenses of your 
office, authorized by the appropriation act of .June 10, 1872, (General Orders No. 55, 
current series, herewith,) Avill be paid by the chief disbursing officer at Washington, 
D. C. Expenses not recognized by that act must not, under any circumstances, be in- 
curred. You may also employ one clerk, at a compensation not exceeding $100 per 
month, and one janitor at a compensation not exceeding $40 per month, both appoint- 
ments sulyect to approval of the Adjutant-General. 

In order that you may obtain a proper understanding of the plan proposed to carry 
out the provisions of the act of March 29, 1867, (General Orders No. 53, 1867,) I trans- 
mit herewith a full set of all blank forms prepared for the use of the freedmen's 
brauch Adjutant-Generars Office, (some made up as samples,) with such notes thereon 
in red ink as, in the opinion of this office, will be of assistance to enable you to deter- 
mine the use and purposes thereof. 

The " Register of claims " is intended to be a complete record of all money received 
by you, and of all payments made. The information necessary to make said record 
will l^ obtained from the lists referred to in paragraph 3, General Orders No. 79, cur- 
rent series, (Form 13.) 

The information to be supplied by the Adjutant-General, referred to in section 6, para- 
graph 2, General Orders No. 79, current series, will be an extract from the official 
records, giving military history of the soldier, together with such other facts as are 
shown by the records, that will, it is believed, in the majority of cases enable you to 
determine as to the identity of the person or persons presenting themselves as claim- 
ants. This extract (Form No. 24) is to be considered siriciJij co)ifKletitial, and the exam- 
ination made in connection therewith should, in all cases, be conducted xwivately. It 
will constitute the "special examination" contemplated by paragraph 2, section 6, 
General Orders No. 79. 

When the identification shall have been completed and payment made under para- 
graph 2, section 4, General Orders No. 79, it will be your duty, in each avd every case, to 
inform and impress upon the claimant that the money does not belong to, and is not 
subject to claim, in whole or in part, by any one. Further, you will instruct that if 
any part of it is demanded by any attorney, agent, or other person, you desire the fact 
to be made known to you at once, in order that you may afford protection against 
attempts to swindle or defraud. 

As regards the necessary office-furniture, stationery, &c., great economy should be 
exercised by you, the appropriation for the pui-chase thereof being limited. Printed 
headings on letter-paper and envelopes cannot be allowed. In case you find that the 
business of your office would be facilitated by the use of any particular blank or 
blanks, you can submit forms for approval, and, if adopted, a supply will be furnished 
from this office. 

Any suggestion you may make as to the manner of conducting the business of " dis- 
covery, identification, and payment" of claimants, will receive consideration, and is 
respectfully iuA'ited. 

I am, maior, very respectfuUv, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutaiii-Goieral. 
Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assista7it Adutaut-Gmcral. 



28 

No. 6. 

[General Orders Xo. 53.] 

War Department, Adjutant-Gexeral's Office, 

IFasli'mgion, April 11, 1867. 

The following- resolution of Congress is published for tlie iuformatiou and govern- 
ment of all concerned : 



[Public resolution — No. 25.] 

A EESOLUTIOX in reference to the collection and payment of moneys due colored soldiers, sailors, 

and marines, or their heirs. 

Besolved hy the Senate and Houxe of Bepresentativcs of the United States of America in 
Conf/ress assembled, That all checks and Treasury certilicates to he issued in the settle- 
ment of claims for pay, bounty, prize-money, or other moneys due to colored soldiers, 
sailors, or marines, or their legal representative?, now residing, or who may have re- 
sided, in any State in which slavery existed in the year eighteen hundred and sixty, 
the claim for which has been or may be prosecuted by an agent or attorney, shall be 
made payable to the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau, who shall pay the said 
agent or attorney his lawful fees and expenses, aufl shall hold the balance subject to 
the order of the claimants on satisfactory identification ; but no money shall be paid 
to any person except the claimant, or his or her legal re[)reseutatives, if deceased; nor 
shall any power of attorney, transfer, or assignment of the amount of said claims, or 
any part thereof, be recognized or allowed by the Commissioner, or by any officer or 
agent acting under him ; and it shall be the duty of the said Commissioner, the officers 
and agents of the Freedmeu's Bureau, to facilitate, as far as possible, the discoveiy, 
identitication, and payment of the claimants. 

Sec. 2. And be it further resolved, That the Commissioner of the Freedmeu's Bureau 
shall be held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds 
hereby intrusted to him. In settling with the attornej'^ or agent of the claimant strict 
compliance with the scale of fees prescribed by the second section of a joint resolution 
approved June twenty-six, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, entitled "Joint resolution 
ameudalorj' of a joint resolution respecting bounties to colored soldiers and the pen- 
sions, bounties, and allowances to their heirs," approved June fifteen, eighteen hun- 
dred and sixty-six, will in every case be required and enforced ; and if any attorney 
or agent shall, in addition to notarial seals and expenses of collecting such claim, de- 
mand repayment for money loaned or advanced to any claimant, he shall be required 
to make oath to the date aud amount of such loan or advance, or payment of the fees 
and expenses shall be withheld; and when the claimant shall have been properly iden- 
tified, and his account is ready for settlement, the balance due shall be paid in current 
funds, and not iu checks or drafts. 

Sec. 3. And be it further resolved, That all money held or disbursed under the pro- 
visions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same rules and regula- 
tions governing other disbursing officers of the Army. 

Approved March 29, 18(37. 



By order of the Secretary of War. 



Official : 

Thomas M. Vincent, 

A ssistan t A djiita n t- Gen era I. 



E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Assista n t A djiilaii t-General. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 

A. 

War Depaktjient, Ad.h'taxt-Gexeral's Office, 

Washington, 1). C, July 13, 1872. 
Gexerat, : I have the honor to report that, in addition to the regular funds received 
for the "payment of arrears of pay, bounty, prize-money, &c., due colored soldiers and 
sailors," Major J. M. Brown, late disl)ursing officer of the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lauds, has turned over to me, aud for which I have given a mem- 
orandum receipt, the sum of * !§;1G,()*J2.()3 as belonging to claimants who have signed 

'^ Amount subsequently increased. See B. 



29 

vouchers, but have neglected, to call for their money. These vouchers have been filed 
with the accounts of the officer who disbursed the money, and credit is claimed on the 
books of the Treasury for the araonnt. 

Major Brown has also furnished me with memoranda lists of the names of the persons 
to whom this money belongs, from which 1 have compiled the inclosed statement, which 
shows the amount received, also the persons to whom the money is due, arranged in a 
convenient form for reference. 

The total amount due claimants as shown by said list is $23, 705 14 

Amount received, by me 16, 692 63 

Balance outstanding 7,012 51 



and accounted for as follows : 

Amount due from O. C. French, late of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 

and Abandoned Lands $6, 841 54 

Amount ijaid Eli Foster 171 50 



7,013 04 



It seems that Eli Foster was paid from funds sent out to pay other claimants. Such 
being the case, the amount so paid should be placed with this fund from the regular 
funds turned over to me by Major Brown. The matter will, however, require a 
thorough investigation before any transfer is made. 

I have no information whatever in regard to the money in the hands of O. C. French; 
should that amount be recovered and the transfer made as above, I will have funds 
sufficient to pay all the claimants named on the list herewith, with an excess of 53 
cents. This excess can be explained as follows : The unpaid claims in the hands of the 
disbursing officer, New Orleans, Louisiana, amounted in the aggregate to $4,563.04. 
The checks received from him by Major Brown, and turned over to me, amounted to 
-14,563.57 — 53 cents more than the above amount. 

Since the transfer of the funds mentioned above, a mmiber of checks, drawn by Major 
Brown in iiayment of claims, have been returned to him, and, although not officially 
transferred to me, I hold the same, awaiting the return of Major Brown, who is now 
absent from the city. 

As the matter now stands, no one seems accountable for this money. The disbursing 
officers who disbursed, the same claim credit for the amount on the books of the Treas- 
ury, while, in fact, the money has not been paid. 

It seems to me that the proper course to pursue would be to submit the whole matter 
to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, (with whom the settlement of these accounts 
rests,) in order that he may charge the proper disbursing officers with the amount of 
the unpaid vouchers, and credit them with the money in my hands received from Major 
Brown. 

If this is done, the amount can be placed with the general fund, and the claimants 
can be paid in the usual way ; if not, upon application I would be obliged to pay the 
amount to the claimant without a proper receipt, (he having already signed, vouchers, 
which are beyond my control.) 

I respectfully ask instructions. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAS. MCMILLAN, 
Captain Third Artillery, Dislmrsiiig Officer. 

Adjutant-Gexeral United States Army, 

ff'asliingto7i D. C, {through Assi-'itant Adjutant-General Vincent.) 

[Indorsements on the foregoing.] 

Respectfully submitted to the Adjutant-General, recommending that the entire mat- 
ter be placed before the Second Auditor, as suggested by Captain McMillan, disbursing 
officer. 
Adjutant-General's Office, July 13, 1872. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-Gi neral. 

Approved : 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutani-Gerteral. 
July 15, 1872. 



30 

B. 

War Departmext, Adjlttant-General's Office, 

WasMngton, D. C, August 2Q, 1872. 

Sir: I am directed by the Adjutant-Geueral of the Army to submit the following for 
your iustructiou : 

Mnj. J. M. Brown, late disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lauds, has turned over to nie !ji31,078.03, funds belongiujj to colored soldiers, who have 
signed vouchers for their money, but neglected to call for the same. Said vouchers 
have been filed with the accounts of the disbui-sing officer, and credit is claimed therefor 
on the books of the Treasury. 

Major Brown also furnished me with memoranda lists of the names of the persons 
who have signed vouchers as above stated, from which I have compiled the inclosed 
statement, arranged in a convenient form for reference. 

The total amount due claimants, as shown by said list, is |i37, 919 04 

Amount received by me 31,078 03 



Balance required to pay claims 6, 841 01 

I am informed that this balance, and 53 cents, in all !|6,841..54, is in the hands of one 
O. C. French, late agent Bureau liefugeos, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, which 
sum, if recovered, will give me sufficient funds to iiay the claimants enumerated on the 
list inclosed, with an excess of 53 cents. 

In submitting this matter for your instructions, my desire is to have this money so 
placed that some one will be accountable for it to the Treasury, (as it now staiuls, no 
one seems to be,) and also to enable me to pay these claimants upon application, and 
receive from them proper vouchers for the disbursement. 
I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

JAS. McMillan, 

Captain Third Artillery, Chief Disbursing Officer. 
Second Auditor, 

United States Treasury. 



Treasury Department, 
Second Auditor's Office, Septemher 4, 1872. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of August 26, 1872, requesting instructions relative to 
$31,078.03, received from Maj. J. M. Brown, late assistant disbursing officer Freed- 
men's Bureau, I have to request that $21,226.48 be taken up oq your account-current to 
the credit of General O. O. Howard, and $9,851.02 to the credit of General George W. 
Balloch, and transmit your receipts therefor to this office, in order that proper credit 
may be given them in the settlement of their accounts, the vouchers upon which credit 
was claimed having been disallowed. The remainder (53 cents) should be credited to 
the officer entitled to the same. 

Steps should be taken to recover the sum of $6,841..54, *said to be in the hands of one 
O. C. French, and, when received, in like manner credited to General Balloch. 
Your attention is also respectfully invited to the remarks on the inclosed lists. 
Eespectfully, 

C. F. HERRING, 

Acting Auditor, 
Adjutant-General, 

United States Army. 



D. 

War Department, Ad.jutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, August 22, 1872. 
General : I have the honor to report that Maj. J. M. Brown, late disbursing officer 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, has turned over to me the sum ot 
$726,842.11, to pay unsettled claims of colored soldiers and sailors. 
In order to ascertain whether this sum was sufficient to pay the unsettled claims 

* Case has, since the foregoing, been placed before the Department of Justice. 



31 

shown by the records of said Bureau to be on file, I caused lists of the same to be pre- 
pared. The aggregate amount thus shown to be due is $730,596.80. 

In the preparation of this statement great care has been taken to have it accurate, 
and I believe it is as near correct as is possible to make it with the clerical force under 
my control. I found a great many errors, the result of negligence on the part of the 
clerk or clerks charged with entering the payments on the bounty register; but this 
can in time be corrected, as the cash-books contain a record of all payments and receipts, 
and will be the guide in the settlement of all claims in the future. 

It would appear from the above that there is a deficiency of $3,754.69, that being the 
sum still required to settle with claimants whose claims are borne on the recorcls of 
the late Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands .as unpaid. 
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

•IAS. McMillan, 

Captain Third Artillery, Disbuminu Officer. 
Adjutant-Genehal U. S. Army, 

ThroKffh Maj. Thomas M. Vincent, Assistant Adjutant-General. 

[Indorsements on the foregoing.] 

War Department, Adjutant-Gexeral's Office, 

August ^-Z, 1872. 
Respectfully forwarded to the Adjutant-General United States Army. 
It appears from the within that there is a deficiency of $3,7.54.69, for which sum the 
Commissioner of the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds should 
be held responsible and required to explain. 

I suggest that, until the deficiency is explained, a sufficient number of claims to 
cover the amount be selected, and set aside to await the result of the explanation. In 
that way the obstacle to speedy payments of the other claims will be removed. 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistan t Adju tan t-Gencral. 

Adjutaxt-General's Office, 

August 22, 1872. 
Respectfully submitted to the Secretary of War. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 
Approved by the Secretary of War. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General 
August 22, 1872. 



Washington, D. C, December 7, 1872. 
Sir : I called upon General Balloch yesterday, and asked him how any discrepancy 
could exist between my receipts and the soldiers' certificates turned over to me, as I 
had understood from a conversation with the Assistant Adjutant-General that such a 
discrepancy did exist. He put in writing the following statement, which I forward for 
your information. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen. U. S. A., laic Commissioner Bureau R., F. and A. L. 

Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretart/ of War. 



F. 

Washington, D. C, December 6, 1872. 
Dear Sir : When I was relieved as disbursing officer of the Freedmen's Bureau, in 
October, 1871, and turned over the bounty-funds in my hands to you, the settlement 
was made according to the balance shown to be due the United States by the account- 
current, which was made up from the cash-book. 



32 

This is the method pursued by all disbursingi»officers when relieved ; a final state 
nient beiutr always based upon the adjiistuient of the accounts by the Treasury Depart- 
ment. The amount transferred to you as above indicated was somewhat less than would 
appear from the certificate-book, for this reason : In paying the large number of claim- 
ants that I did, some mistakes were made in the identification of some of them, which 
resulted in the payment of wrong persons. Of course, the right persons bad to be paid 
when the error was discovered. The law made no provision for any remedy in such cases ; 
hence they appear on the books as double payments. In addition to these amounts are 
the usual clerical errors which occur in the accounts of all disbursing officers. I think 
the ditference will amount, in all, to from twenty-five hundred to three thousand dol- 
lars ; which is not a very large sum when the amount disbursed (over eight millions) 
and the peculiar chai'acter of the disbursements are considered. 

The Second Auditor is hard at work on my accounts, and in a few days I shall get 
an official " statement of differences," which will show just how the matter stands. I 
commenced disbursing on this account in April, 1867, and as yet have liad no state- 
ment of accounts. From this you will see it has been impossible for me to make a 
final settlement. 

Very respectfully, 

GEO. W. BALLOCII, 
Bvf. Brhj. Gen. and late Chief D. 0. Bureau R., F. and A. L; 

General O. O. Howakd. 

Official copy : 
M. C. Wilkinson, 

First Lieutenant, Third Infantry, A. D, C. 



G. 

Wak Departmicnt, Ad.httant-Generai.'s Office, 

Waninngton, D. C, September :^1, 1872. 

General: I have the honor to inclose herewith application of Frank Bras, esq., a 
"suspended" attorney of Memphis, Tenn., for payment of fees alleged to have been 
retained by the late Freedmen's Bureau, from the proceeds of Treasury certificates 
issued in settlement of claims for bounty, »fcc., in which he is attorney of record. 

It seems to have been the practice of General George W. Balloch, while chief disburs- 
ing officer of the late Freedmen's Bureau, to retain the amount of the legal fee, and 
$1.50 for notarial expenses, from the proceeds of each Treasury certificate issued in set- 
tlement of claims in which the attorney of record was reported by the Auditor as either 
" suspended" or "unlicensed;" the amount so withheld to be paid to the attorneys at 
such time as payment might become proper, either by the removal of suspension or by 
the attorney taking out proper license. 

In such cases the claimant in whose favor the Treasury certificate was issued was 
required to sign vouchers for the full amount of the same, which vouchers were ren- 
dered by General Balloch to the Auditors of the Treasury, and credit therefor was given 
him in his accounts. 

Thus General Balloch, having received credit at the Treasury to the fnll amount of 
the certificate, rested further action as to the payment entirely with himself, and re- 
leased himself from the rendition of accounts covering the amounts he may have re- 
tained ; consequently it is not known what amount of money so retained is still in his 
possession. 

In view of the fact, however, that during the period of his service in the late Bureau 
certificates were issued and paid in settlement of claims in which the attorneys were 
" suspended," and whose suspension has not yet been removed, it is believed that the 
amount of fees retained in such cases are still in his possession, there being no " re- 
tained fees " (so called) embraced in the amount of funds turned over to this office by 
his innnediate successor, Maj. J. M. Brown, disbursing officer of the late Freedmen's 
Bureau. As under section 3 of the act of March 29, 1867, (War Department General 
Order No. .')3, of 1867,) » * * all money " held or disbursed * ■* * [by General 
Balloch] was to be held or disbursed under the same rules and regulations governing 
other disbursing officers of the Army," I am constrained to invite attention to the vio- 
lation of law involved in the transaction as herein referred to. 

General Balloch should be called upon, by the Secretary of War, to transfer to this 
office at once all fees due suspended or unlicensed attorneys, and to accompany the 
same by a full statement, in detail, of the amounts retained and unpaid by him, giv- 
ing, at the same time, the names and post-office address of such attorneys, together 



33 

•wifh a detailed statement of the amounts subsequently paid by him, and to what at- 
torneys paid. 

I may add that, as the records of the late Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands should have iiointed to the transactions now reported, it would seem that the 
order of the Secretary of War of June 2-^, 1S72, (General 55, paragraph 1,) directing all 
funds to be transferred to the Adjutant-General, has not been complied with. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 
The Adjutant-General of the Army, 



H. 

War Department, Waslibujton, D. C, September 23, 1872. 
Sir : You are hereby directed to transfer, at once, to the Adjutant-General of the 
Army, all fees due suspended or unlicensed attorneys, retained or unpaid by you, and 
to accompany the same by a full statement, in detail, of the amounts so retained and 
unpaid, giving, at the same time, the names and post-office address of such attorneys, 
and a detailed statement of the amounts, if any, subsequently paid, and what attorneys, 
You will please give your authority for the retention by you and non-transfer of the 
said fees to j-our successor. At the same time au explanation is desired as to the vio- 
lation by you of section 3 of the act of March 29, 1867, (War Department General Order 
No. 53, of 1867,) which directs that all money held or disbursed * * * -^as to be 
held or disbursed under the same rules and regulations governing other disbursing 
officers of the Army. 

Respectfully, yours, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
General George W. Balloch, 

Late Disburs'uKj Officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Wush'uujton, D. C. 



I. 

Washington, D. C, Octoher 2, 1879, 

Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your communication of Sep- 
tember 23, in which I am directed to transfer, at once, to tlie Adjutant-General of the 
Army, all fees retained, and unpaid, suspended, or unlicensed attorneys, with detailed 
statements, «&c. 

I inclose herewith certificate of deposit, No. 5196, for the sum of $2,867, with the 
Treasurer of the United States, that being the total amount remaining in my hands. 

The balance of these fees so retained has been paid, from time to time, to the attor- 
neys when restored to practice by competent authority, or to the persons from whose 
bounties the sum had been retained, upon their furnishing evidence that they had paid 
their attorneys themselves. 

I inclose also a list, giving the name and post-office address, as far as known, of each 
attorney, with the amount due each. I am unable to give the full details as you de- 
sire. I left in the Freedmen's Bureau, when relieved, a recoi'd-book, which shows 
everything relating to these matters. I presume this book is now in the War Depart- 
ment. I kept, for my own information, the amounts unpaid, as shown by this list. 

As these fees pertained to cases paid by me, and which my successor had nothing to 
do with, I was informed by the officers of the Treasury Department engaged in settling 
my bounty-accounts that it was iierfectly proper for me to retain them in my hands 
until such accounts were settled, and then make such disposition of them as I might 
be directed. These fees wei-e not considered as public funds, but as private funds, 
belonging either to the attorneys or the bounty claimants, and lield in trust by me for 
them until the question- was settled as to whom the money belonged. 
I am, very respectfully, &c., 

GEO. W. BALLOCH. 

Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 

H. Ex. 10 3 



34 

K. 

War Department, Adjut.\:nt-Gexeral's Office, 

Washington, D. C, Octoler 12, 1872. 

Sir : I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 2tl iustant, inclosing 
certificate of deposit to the credit of the Adjutant-General of the Army in the sum of 
$2,867, heing the amount stated to have been retained by you while chief disbursing 
officer of the late Freedmen's Bureau as fees in the case of certificates issued iu settle- 
ment of claims iu which the attorneys of record were either suspended, unlicensed, or 
dead, acoorapauied by a statement showing the names of such attorneys, and the 
amount due each. 

Your inability to furnish a detailed statement in this matter, as called for by letters 
of the 23d ultimo, is to be regretted, as it devolves upon this office considerable labor 
and inconvenience, necessitating an examination of voluminous records iu order to 
ascertain from what claim the fees were retained. 

The "record-book," to which you refer as "showing everything relating to these 
matters," was not transferred with the Freedmen's Bureau records. 

It is, therefore, respectfully requested that you will inform this Office whether the 
record referred to was kei>t by clerks or by yourself, personally, and if kept by your- 
self, to whose immediate custody it was transferred when you were relieved from duty 
iu the Bureau. 

Please, also, give a general description of the book so far as you may be able to 
do so. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 

General George" W. Balt.ocii, 

Washinglon, D. C. ■' 



War Department, Adj.utant-General's Office. 

Washington, D. C, November 1, 1872. 

Sir: Under date of September 23 last, General George W. Balloch was directed by 
the Secretary of War to transfer at once to the Adjutant-General of the Army all fees 
due suspended or unlicensed attorneys retained or unpaid by him while chief disburs- 
ing officer of the late Freedmen's Bureau, and to accompany the same by a full state- 
ment in detail of the amounts so retained and unpaid, giving at the same time the 
names and post-office address of such attorneys, and a detailed statement of the 
amounts, if any, subsequently paid, and to what attorney, &c. In response General 
Balloch, under date of the 2d ultimo, forwarded to this office a certificate of deposit to 
the credit of the Adjutant-General of the Army, in the sum of $2,807, accompanied by a 
list of the attorneys on whose account fees aggregating that amount hatl been retained 
by him, and expressed his inability to give the full details, as recpiested ; adding that 
he left in the Freedmen's Bureau, Avheu relieved, a record-book, showing everything 
relating to these matters, which book he presumed was now in the War Department. 
A letter addressed to him from this Office, under date of the 12th ultimo, informing him 
that no such book was received with the records of the late Bureau, aud requesting cer- 
tain information respecting the same,Js ye't unanswered. 

In view of the irregularities involved throughout such transaction; the failure of 
General Balloch to report in detail, as requested; his seeming disinclinatiou to furnish 
information necessary to intelligent action by this Office on claims that may be pre- 
sented I'or fees retained by him, together with the fact that a cursory examination of 
the records has shown that fees were retained in cases not included in his list referred 
to, I deem it proper to submit the matter to you for the further consideratioivof the 
Secretary of War. 

It is believed that the cases in which retained fees are yet unaccounted for are prin- 
cipally, if not wholly, those iu which the attorneys were unlicensed, not suspended. 
I have the honor to be, very resi)ectfully, your obiMlient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 

The Adjutant-General of the Army. 



35 

[Indorsena^nts on the foregoing.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

November 25, 1872. 
Eespectfnlly referred to General O. O. Howard, late Commissioner Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lauds, for remarks, T)rior to further action by the Secretary of 
War. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 

Washington, D. C, Noveniber 29, 1872. 

Eespectfully refen-ed to General George W. Balloch, late chief disbursing officer Bu- 
reau Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, for explanation. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brig. Gen. U. S. A., late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Washington, D. C, November 30, 1872. 

Eespectfnlly returned, with statement that on the 7th day of November, 1872, I de- 
livered, in person, to General Vincent a letter describing the missing record-book 
which contained the full account of all the retained fees. The amount turned over to 
the Adjutant-General was all that remained in my hands. Not having the books, 
records, and documents of my late office in my possession, I have not the data from 
which to furnish more detailed information. 

G. W. BALLOCH, 
Late Chief Disbursing Officer Bureau Refugees, 
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Washington, D. C, December 2, 1872. 
Eespectfully forwarded to the Hon. Secretary of War, and attention invited to the 
indorsement of General Balloch hereon. General Balloch is at present engaged in set- 
tling his accounts at the United States Treasury, and states to me that he does not 
wish to correspond further with me ou official matters of a financial nature until that 
is done. 1 i-ecommend that the Aiaditors of the Treasury having his account in charge 
be requested by the Hon. Secretary of War to hasten this settlement as much as is 
practicable. 

O. O. HOWAED, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

December 16, 1872. 
Eespectfully submitted to the Secretary of War, with the remark that neither the 
indorsement of General Balloch, nor that of General Howard, meets the requirements 
of the within letter. 

The book in question was not received at this office. Who is responsible for its dis- 
appearance ? 

It will be very proper for the Secretary of War to ask immediate and special settle- 
ment of the accounts, but that will not furnish information as to the fees, as General 
Balloch's vouchers, filed in the Treasury, iudicate that he has paid the full amount to 
the claimants, when, in fact, he has retained a portion of the same, as is said, for the 
purpose of paying the legal fees and expenses to the attorneys. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 



M. 

War Department, Washington, D. C, December 19, 1872. 
Sir: ^iviting your perusal of the accompanying letter and its indorsements, I have 
the honor to request such speedy action upon the accounts of Gen. George W. Balloch, 
late chief disbursing officer of the Freedmeu's Bureau, now in process of settlement iu 
your Bureau, as a due regard for other matters within your jurisdiction will permit. 

This special settlement is asked not on behalf of General Balloch, but of the public 
service. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 
Secretary of War. 
The Second Auditor of the Treasury. 



36 

N. . 

Treasury Department, 

Second JudUor's Office, December -ZA, 1872. 
Sir : In reply to your letter of 19tli instant, relative to the speedy settlement of the 
account of Gen. George W. Balloch, lato chief disbursing oflicer of the Freedmen's 
Bureau, I have to say that nine clerks have been employed in the examination thereof 
since September, 1871, but owing to the fact that it was necessary to record every 
voucher in order to detect overiiayments and double payments, they were unable to 
complete it until a short time since. 

Two clerks are now engaged in stating the account of General Balloch in the name 
of General O. O. Howard, (the Second Comptroller having decided that the latter was to 
be held responsible for the faithful disbursement of the moneys received under the 
joint resolution of March 29, 1867,) and will probably report it to the Second Comp- 
troller on or about the 15th day of January next. 
Very respectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, 

Auditor, 
Hon. W. W. Belkxap, 

/Secretary of War. 



O. 

War Department, Washington, D. C, December 19, 1872. 1 

Sir : The Adjutant-General has forwarded to me a communication from Asst. Adjt. 

Gen. Thouuis M. Vincent, now in charge of the records, etc., of the Freeilmen's Bureau, 

of the 1st of November, with your iudorsemeuts and that of General Balloch upon it, 

said letter being in relation to fees due suspended or unlicensed attorneys, &c. 

I send you a copy of this letter, and inviting attention to the indorsement of the 
Adjutant- General thereon, I have the honor to request that the book therein referred 
to, viz, the record-book, claimed to have been left by General Balloch in the Freed- 
men's Bureau, when he was relieved, but which has not been tiled in the Department, 
may be procured and forwarded to the Department, if it is possible to fiud it. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
General O. 0. Howard, 

Washington, D. C. 



P. 

Washington, D. C, December 24, 1872. 
Sir : Your letter, asking me "to procure and forward, if it is possible to find it," a 
missing record-book, is received. I have been very anxious to restore this important 
book, and liad liad search carefully made of every place where it would be likely to 
be found befoie the receipt of your order. Again I have made diligent search ; have 
visited the house of General Balloch to see if it might not have been overlooked among 
his retained papers and accounts, but I cannot find it. Geneial Balloch says confi- 
dently, and reiterates it, that the book was left by him in his otJtice-desk, which was 
left in my charge. I never saw the book. The financial clerk says it was kept by 
General iialloeh himself, all entries being made by him, and that the book was never 
seen by him (the clerk) after the discharge of General Balloch. I recommend that the 
Secretary make a direct request by letter to each of the following persons with I'efer- 
euce to this record, viz: S. A. Teny, (late financial cleik,) now clerk Second National 
Bank; 2d. A. N. Tiiompson, clerk in General Vincent's office; 3d. John Daren, (late 
clerk,) now proprietor Saint James Hotel; 4th. David S. Blue, chirk for the treasurer 
of Howard University ; also to General George W. Balloch himself, now of the»board of 
public works. I ask this because 1 think the Secretary's request or demand will have 
more weight with all parties, and will satisfy him that I have neither hidden nor de- 
stroyed any record, nor caused any to be destroyed. 
Very respectfuUv, your obedient servant, 

0. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 
Hon. W. W. Bki.knap, 

Secretary of War. 



37 

■ Q. 

Washin'GTOX, November 1, 1872. 
Sir : I have the honor to acknowledge your communication of October 12, and to 
state in reply, in relation to the record-book referred to, that, as near as I can recollect, 
it was a twelve-quire book, headed and ruled for the purpose. It was kept generally 
by myself, but sometimes the clerk in charge of the bounty division made entries in it. 
I left it, with other books, in the desk which I occupied. 
Very respectfully, 

G. W. BALLOCH. 
General Thomas M. Vincent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General, United States Army, 



E. 

War Dep^uitmext, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, November 19, 1872. 

Sir : I have to inform you that the book of " Letters Sent," volume 5, certificate branch 
of claim division, 1870, and file of "Letters Received," letter C of prosecution branch 
of same division for 1866, were not among the records of the late Freedmen's Bureau 
transferred to this office, and to request that you will cause proper search for the same 
to be instituted, and forward them to this office when found. 

The absence of the records referred to is a source of inconvenience in conducting the 
work of the branches to which they pertain. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEMD, 

Adjntant-General, 
Brig. Gen. 0. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D, C. 

Note.— The book " Letters Sent" was received from General Howard soon after the 
date of the foregoing request. 



S. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, December 18, 1872. 

Sir : In the nrosecution of the work connected with the business of the late Freed- 
men's Bureau, the incompleteness of the records of the late assistant commissioners 
of States and their subordinates is continually made more manifest, and is found tp be 
9, serious obstacle to the proper transaction of the current business of this office. 

As remarked in my report of October 7 last, there is good reason to believe that 
many of the agents of the late Bureau, both State and local, have retained possession 
of a part or the whole of the records of their late offices. It is certain that many of 
the records, books, and files were not transferred by the late Commissioner to this office, 
and it is rocommeuded that the matter be placed before the Secretary of War, with the 
view to call upon General Howard for the production of the missing records. 

It is, of course, impossible to enumerate the missing books and papers, and it is im- 
practicable at this time to make a detailed statement of the deficiency ; but enough is 
known to indicate that records covering a period of from six months to two years are 
absent from the files of most of the States, while the entire records of some of the local 
offices or agencies are missing. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 



The Adjutant-General, United States Army. 



THOMAS M. VINCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



War Department, 

Washington City, December 23, 1872. 
Sir : The Adjutant-General reports to me that in the prosecution of the work of the 
late Freedmen's Bureau the incompleteness of the records of the late commissioners of 
States and their subordinates is found to be a serious obstacle to the proper trans- 



38 

aclion of the current business of the office, and that "there is good reason to believe 
that many of the agents of tlie late Bureau, both State aud local, have retained posses- 
sion of a part or the whole of the records of their late offices ;" that " it is, of course, 
impossible to enumerate the missing books and papers, and it is impracticable at this 
time to make a detailed statement of the deficiency ; but enough is known to indicate 
that records covering a period of from six months to two years are absent from the 
files of most of the States, while the entire records of some of the local offices or 
agencies are missing." 

I have therefore the honor to request that you cause inquiry and search to be insti- 
tuted for the records above indicated, and have them forwarded to the War Department 
for file with the other records of the Bureau. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 



General O. O. Howard, JVasMngton , D. C. 



Secretary of War. 



U. 

Washington, D. C, Decemder 25, 1872. 

Sir : Your letter of the 23d instant, giving me extracts from the Adjutant-General's 
reports with reference to Freedmen's Bureau records, is received. In rej)ly, permit me 
to ask if the Adjutant-General means the assistant commissioners and subagents of the 
different States. I thiuk there were nearly two thousand of them in all, and they are 
now scattered, many even beyond the limits of the United States. "To institute a 
search" would be too much for me to undertake with any hope of success. All were 
ordered to send in their records, an officer placed in charge of receiving them, and an 
excellent clerk set to arranging them by States. This was done as the diiijerent 
branches of the Bureau were closed. I found the records complete enough to investi- 
gate carefully every case referred to me — in the land division, in the hospital division, 
the school, the labor, the claim, and generally in the bounty division of the Bureau. 
When I made my reports I was quickly furnished with official data. It cannot be that 
" the entire records of the local officers are missing," unless they have been lost or stolen 
in transitu or since their arrival at the War Department. I think the Adjutant-General 
must refer to bounty officials alone ; some of their records were received here before 
the transfer in boxes, which were sent to you without being opeued. I am bound to 
try to do what you order me to undertake, and will enter upon it at once ; but you will 
do me the justice to aid me by such clerical or other help as I maj^ need from time to 
time, and such means as will be necessary to employ detectives and send them from 
place to place, will you not ? I assure you that had I remained in charge till the abso- 
lute close of the Bureau I would have left my work in a more complete condition. 
New officers and new clerks are always comparatively ignorant of a set of Bureau 
recoi'ds, and apt to be very critical and censorious of their predecessors. I feel sure 
that I could, even now, step in and, with the appropriation and clerical force that you 
allow', put the entire office to rights. If the Adjutant-General will furnish me a list of 
the officers and agents paying bounties during my administration, I will, by corre- 
spondence, do what I can to get the records in ; but if any agent wishes to keeji back a 
book for any reason, or acts dishonestly, I shall need your help, as I have stated. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brifjadler-Gencral, United States Army. 

Hon. W. W. Belknap, Secretary of War. 



V. 

War Department, 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmkn and Abandoned Lands, 
Office Chief Quartermaster, 

WasMnyton, I). C, July 1, 1872. 
Sir : The inclosed accounts for transportation furnished on Bureau transportation 
orders from 1866 to 1868 were forwarded to this office since the api)ropriation for trans- 
portation was exhausted, in 1871. 



39 

No transportation orders were issued after 1868, aud the transportation companies 
had three years in which to receive settlement of tlieir accounts. 

There are now no funds of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
to pay these accounts. 

Very resiiectfully, &c., 

J. M. BROWN, 
Disbursing Officer. 
Capt. James McMillan, 

Third Artillery, Disbursing Officer. 



W 

War Department, Ad.jutaxt-Generax's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 2, 1873. 
General: Referring to communication of the 1st July, 1872, of Maj. J. M. Brown? 
late disbursing officer, copy herewith, transmitting certain unsettled accounts for trans- 
portation furnislied on certain orders of the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lauds from 1866 to 1868, and reporting that there are no funds to pay the 
same, I have respectfully to invite your attention to the fact that no schedule or cer- 
tificate showing the outstanding debts of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands accompanied the same, as required by paragraph 1009, Revised Reg- 
ulations, United States Army. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 
General O. O. Howard, 

Commissioner late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen 

aud Abandoned Lands, Washington, D, C. 



X. 

Final general report, tvith supplementary one of the Commissioner. 

Washington, D. C, December 5, 1872. 

Sir : I have the honor to submit the following report, called for by act of Congress, 
March 3, 1865, my final report as Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees,, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands : 

My long absence from Washington, on public duty, accounts for the lateness of this 
report, and precludes an extended review of the operations of this Bureau during the 
whole period of its existence. 

During the last year, as in the previous year, my work has been restricted to the col- 
lection and payment of bounties and other moneys due colored soldiers, aud the care 
of the Freedmen's Hospital in this District. At the same time 1 have given some ad- 
visory aid to the educational work. 

The following schedule shows the number of patients treated in the Washington 
Hospital and Asylum during the year ended June 30, 1872. 



















^ 












treated. 








DIED. 






?4 




REMAINING. 


































00 
























-H^ 










o 






a 










a 










P 












o 










CC 






















a 


a 

o 


O 


3 


o 
H 


3 


a 

o 




s 


o 
H 




o 
3 


a 

o 


o' 


3 


ft 

a 




309 


276 


55 


43 


683 


70 


36 


6 


2 


114 


167 


80 


84 


2 


2 


36 


210 



The majority of the patients now in the hospital are so helpless from infirmity or 
extreme old age that they will require charitable support the remainder of their lives. 

The following statement exhibits their physical condition : Blind, deaf and dumb, 
5 ; very old, 64 ; old and crippled, 55 ; loss of limbs, 6 ; paralysis, 15 ; idiotic aud in- 
sane, 2y. 



40 

Besides the inmates of the hospita], there are 67 aged people who draw each 
a ration from the Bureau, and who, though connected with the hospital, have homes 
outside. 

In the Colored Orphan Asylum, also connected with the hospital, there are 54 boys, 
24 girls, 14 old women, and 13 employes ; total 105. These receive medical attendance, 
medicines, fuel, and rations from the hospital. 

The whole number connected with the hospital, and dependent upon the Govern- 
ment for their support and for medical attendance, is 382. 

I am nnable to report the number of claims settled, the amount disbursed in pay- 
ment of bounties, and the expenses of conducting their various operations, without a 
careful examination of the records, which are no longer in my possession. And 
though access to the records has been kindly oft'ered, I have no means for employing 
the clerical force requisite for collating the data necessary for an accurate report ; and 
the Assistant Adjutant-General in charge informs me that he cannot furnish the same 
with the limited force of his offlce. 

The small appropriation for this Bureau was expended before the close of the year, 
and I was compelled to discharge all the i^aid agents stationed in the several Southern 
States, and to suspend the payment of bounties, except so far as it could be done at 
my office in this city. For the same reason it has been impossible to keep the records 
of the office always up with the current business and to answer correspondents as 
promptly as could be desired. 

I regret that means and time were not granted me to complete and perfect the records 
before transferring them to the Adjutant-General's office. 

But the law providing for the discontinuance of the Bureau was passed so late that 
it was necessary to remove the books and x:)apers — the accumulations of seveii years — in 
great haste, and some disorder must have Ijeen the result. But capable and experienced 
clerks could soon re-arrange all the files in their proper cases and make them accessible 
for reference. 

In closing my connection with the Freedmen's Bureau, I desire to express my thanks 
to the officers and agents who have faithfully and patiently aided me in conducting its 
operations, often perplexing and difficult, but I believe useful to a long-oppressed peo- 
ple, and to our whole country. ' 
Very respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General, United States Army, late Commissioner. 

The Hon. Secretary op War. 

[Indorsement on the foregoing.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

December 14, 1872. 
Respectfully returned to the Secretary of War, relative to the inability of General 
Howard to report as to claims settled, the amounts disbursed in payment of bounties, 
and the expenses of conducting the various operations. 

It is submitted that the said report can be made from the retained papers of the late 
Conmiissioner and his disbursing officers, General Balloch and Major Brown, during the 
year ended June 30, 1872. 

The information should be submitted to the Secretary of War under his circular of 
the 9th instant, based on miscellaneous <locument No. 1, Forty-second Congress, third 
session, and is required by the act of March 3, 1865, (Statutes at Large, second session 
Thirty-eighth Congress, page 508.) 

"^ « . 1 = ; ^ jj TOWNSEND, 

Ad)utant-General. 

Letter based on foregoing indorsement. 

War Department, Washington, D. C, December 18, 1872. 
Sir : Referring to your final report as Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lauds, made conformable to the act of Congress approved March 
3, 186.5, which requires such reports from the Commissioner of the Bureau, and partic- 
ularly to the latter portion, relative to your inability to report as to claims settled, the 
amounts disbursed in payment of bounties, and the expenses of conducting the various 
operations of the Bureau, I have the honor to request that, if possible, the data above 
referred to as not embraced in your report be collated from your retained papers, and 
those of your disbursing officers, General Balloch and Major Brown, pertaining to the 
year ended June 30, 1872, which it is believed can furnish the desired information. 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
General O. O. Howard, 

Washimjton, D. C. 



41 

Y. 



Washington, D. C, January 3, 1873. 



Sir : In accordance -witli your request of the 18tli ultimo, I have the honor to for- 
ward herewith a supplementary report, showing the receipts and disbursements of the 
late Freedmeu's Bureau from the 31st of August, 1871, the date of the last report, to 
June 30, 1872. This report is made up from the retained papers of General Balloch, 
whom I relieved as disbursing officer on the 11th of October, 1871, from my own, and 
from those of Maj. J. M. Brown, who relieved me on the 5th of February, 1872, and 
who continued to act as disbursing officer until the 30th of June. 

If required I will send their reports separately. 

Bounty fund. 

Balance on hand August 31, 1871 $784,030 74 

Amount received from August 31, 1871, to June 30, 1872 218, 915 92 

Total 1,002,946 66 

Amounts paid claimants and attorneys from August 31, 1871, to June 30, 
1872 $275,431 31 

Transferred to Capt. James McMillan, United States Army, disbursing 
officer ' 720,842 11 

In hands of Maj. Ben. P. Euukle, United States Army, disbursing officer, 
Kentucky, (previously reported) 673 24 

Total 1,002,946 66 

Total number of Treasury certificates and warrants received 1, 250 

Total number of claimants paid 1,544 

Appropriation fund. 

Balance on hand August 31, 1871 $112,798 24 

Eeceived from sale of office-furniture and other public property 1,592 83 

Received from the District government ou account of patients treated in 

the hospital 7,218 10 

Total 121,609 17 

Expenditures, 

In collection and payment of bounties $46,706 45 

For quarters and fuel 3, 411 12 

Postage and telegraphing 575 34 

Transportation of officers and agents 5,853 63 

Stationery and printing 2, 027 35 

Medical department 63, 024 11 

Deposited in United States Treasury 11 17 

Total .- 121,609 17 

Eefugees andfreedmen's fund. 
Received from August 31, 1871, to June 30, 1872 $10, 400 84 

Expended for schools $10,400 84 

School fund. 
Received from sale of so-called confederate property $11, 375 00 

Expended for salaries of teachers, repairs and rent of school-buildings. . . $11, 375 00 

I am, very respectfully, you obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General United States Army, 
Late Commissioner of the Bureau of Befuyees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

The Hon. Secretary of War. 



42 
F.* 

[II. Mis. Doc. No. 87, Forty-second Congress, tliird session.] 

CONDITION OF AFFAIRS OF THE BUREAU OF REFUGEES AND FREED- 

MEN. 

Communication of General 0. 0. Moicard, late Commissioner of the Bureau 
of Refugees^ Freedmen and Ahandoned Lands, to the chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs, relal ire to the report of the Assistant 
Adjutant- General as to the condition of the affairs of the Bureau, made 
October, 1872. February 8, 1873, Referred to the Committee on Military 
Affairs and ordered to be printed. 

Washington, D. C, February 7, 1873. 
To the Chairman of the Military Committee of the House of Representatives: 
Sir : lu looking through the report of Assistant Adjutant-General 
Vincent, dated October 7, 1872, I find that the letters appended thereto 
from General George W. Balloch, Maj. J. M. Brown, the Second Auditor 
of the Treasury, and myself, together with the notes ot the Secretary 
of War, answer, for the most part, the allegations of the report itself. 

I. The first charge I find is, "The records, when delivered, were found 
to be in a state of much confusion." General Vincent then proceeds to 
specify, showing a mixing up of books, papers, «&c., to the close of the 
paragraph. 

Injustice to me. General Vincent might have shown hoiv a considera- 
ble ]»ortion of this confusion was i)roduced. When he several times 
visited me there was no confusion, no books or papers out of place, while 
the Bureau had its full complement of clerks. 

My office was always arranged in the most systematic order. Every 
time I inspected either division — audi did so almost daily, when here — 1 
was able to testify to general orderly management, and I state, Avithout 
fear of contradiction, that I was always able to procure all the needed 
information which my frequent reports to the War Department proper, 
and to Congress, called for, in a very short time. It is possible that my 
system was not precisely like that of the Adjutant-General, but thou- 
sands of witnesses will testify to the good order and system i)revailiug 
in all of the divisions of the Bureau. 

Then why the confusion spoken of? I came home in June from 
Arizona, where I had been sent by the President, having been absent 
over three months on other duty. 

The liureau had failed to keep up the necessary work by failure of 
the appropriation, which had been cut down very largely from my esti- 
mate the year before, and only clerical force enough kept to receive and 
answer important communications. This accounts for the accumulation 
of business, and necessarily for much of tliis confusion. 

Suppose the operations of the Quartermaster's Department should be 
suddenly stopped, and for three months only sis or eiglit clerks be kept 
to receive and answer communications ; any one acquainted with that 
Bureau will know the results. 

II. Confusion was produced in the transfer itself. General Vincent 
kindly sent wagons, messengers, laborers, and clerks to take the archives. 
My few (;lerks were irritated and disapi)ointed, having been suddenly 
cut oft" from Government employment, and, as it seemed to them, treated 
as if in disgrace, though they were as able and upright as their successors. 
Books and papers were taken with little regard to order, and tumbled 



43 

into tlie carts. We picked up important papers en route to the new 
office, and books were found on the stairs and on the ground. 1 know 
that the order of the Adjutant-General and the report make me responsi- 
ble for this careless and disorderly proceeding-. As soon as General 
Vincent called my attention to this responsibility^ I did what was in my 
power to keep my agents and his straight. 

It seemed to me at this time that there must be some concerted plan 
to treat my office with contempt and bring it into disgrace; not on the 
part of the admirable, gentlemanly officers, but of other agents, who 
were not under their immediate eye. 

III. Confusion has been produced by the disappearance of records, 
lost in transitu, stolen, or destroyed. I will explain to the committee 
that no stone has been left unturned to fix accusations ujion officers and 
agents connected with this Bureau. 

They need every record for their defense and justification, and would 
have no motive to destroy them. 

The assistant commissioners were such men as Generals Schofield, 
Terry, and Brown, for Virginia ; Generals Miles and Whittlesey, for 
North Carolina; Generals iSaxon and Scott, for South Carolina ; Gen- 
eral Swayne, for Alabama ; Generals Jefferson C. Davis and Carlin, for 
Kentucky and Tennessee; Generals Thomas J. Wood, Ames, and Gil- 
lem, for Mississippi ; Generals J. W. Sprague, C. H. Smith, and Ord, for 
Arkaiisas; Generals Baird, Buchanan, and Mower, for Louisiana; Gen- 
erals Gregory, Griffin, and Reynolds, for Texas, &c. ; men of national 
reputation and character. Let them answer the charge of imperfect 
records. Many of the local agents at first went from i)lace to place, and 
did what they could to ameliorate the condition of the slaves set free. 
Many were wounded, some were killed. Their records were letters to me, 
which are on file ; they often made no others. The State records were 
all ordered in by me, and as they came a good clerk received them, and 
was iKitting them into as good shape as i^ossible. A word of general 
explanation will account for the want of completeness in Bureau work. 
The object was to relieve vast multitudes from want, and prevent as much 
as possible the necessary shock in putting freedom for slavery. I closed 
the written-contract or labor division as quickly as possible ; in fact kept 
it down, and only had contracts made in writing in part of the districts. 

The temporary courts were transferred to local and home magist^'acy 
just as soon as it could be done. 

The ahandoned-land division was brought to a close soon. It never 
could be very well systematized, but the best possible, under the cir- 
cumstances, was done with it. Complaints ceased as the abandoned 
lands were restored to original owners, and these records are complete 
enough to satisfy any man of the varying action of the Government on 
this head. 

The hospital division was always in good order ; and fifty-six hos- 
pitals in different States were gradually reduced to this one in the Dis- 
trict. I think the inspectors will find everything right here. 

Also in the commissary work the number of dependents was enormous 
when I entered upon my work — no less than one hundred and forty-four 
thousand blacks and whites daily receiving food. I left the number in- 
side of five hundred, and they were, for the most part, the aged, soon 
to pass away. I hope the record of this work has not been burned up 
or otherwise destroyed. 

The quartermasters division had the transporting of men, women, and 
children when the great pressure was upon us, from place of want to 
place of labor, when Washington alone was relieved of upward of ten 



44 

thousand dependents, wlio, almost without exception, became self-sup- 
porting by this operation. These records were all complete before the 
transfer. As the work in the various branches gradually diminished, 
I pushed forward the school division, kept almost entirely by colored 
clerks, before it was generally discovered that they were capable of 
doing things of the clerical kind icell. The superintendent of the edu- 
cational work says the records were complete when he was discharged. 

I wish to say that the disbursing office was under the charge of General 
George W. Balloch ; and, as he is accused in his report, I wish him to 
submit his statement in defense. His office was well kept. His clerks 
were diligent and able, and there were no records wanting up to the 
time he was discharged. 

The payment of bounties was the last item put upon me by law, and 
now^ it is sought to make me personally accountable for a host of disburs- 
ing officers who have all along been under good and sufficient bonds. 
They have, for the most part, labored hard to protect the interests of 
the Government, and to defeat combination to defraud the soldiers, and 
whenever one of these failed no do so, I have exerted all my legal power 
to bring the failing one to the justice the case demanded; and here 
again the books, papers, and records were as complete as in any ofidce 
under the Government of the United States. It may be remembered 
that in the new disbursing office, papers, books, accounts of seven years' 
collection, have been thrown into the hands of new men entirely unfa- 
miliar with them. One Bureau-clerk only has been retained, and he was 
acquainted with only a limited part of the records. Any ordinary busi- 
ness man would be troubled at a sudden transfer of all his papers and 
accounts into new hands ; much worse is it for me. I had hoped to be 
permitted to put my own office into shape, but neither the appropriation 
was granted nor the permission given me to do so. 

All my divisions were grouped around a central office, corresponding 
to the Adjutant-General's in the Army proper. Here the books and 
papers were daily under my own eye, and I do not think the Adjutant- 
General himself would have found any fault as to the keeping of the 
books. All official letters were here received and distributed, and all 
the business of the various branches properly directed and checked. 
All orders and circulars of instruction proceeded from this i^lace. 
"When I was away the head of this office generally stepped into my 
place. 

I have been thus particular in speaking of the whole office, and the 
distribution of labor, to show that there was system and to indicate 
the ease with which such a Bureau closing may be made incomplete and 
confused, especially where great care is not exercised to prevent this 
state of things. 

There is nothing further in General Vincent's report needing answer, 
till we come to the middle of page 3 of the printed report, which speaks 
of a deficit of 83,754.09. General Balloch assumes this as a "statement 
of differences," and explains it fully in letter F, on page 3 of General 
Vincent's report. 

Much of this apparent deficit can be explained so as to relieve him en- 
tirely 5 the rest he will be obliged to ask Congress to relieve him from, 
as he states the amount came from errors of payment, as, for instance, 
paying the wrong parties or fraudulent claimants ; for this the law gives 
no relief. He or his bondsmen will have to meet the difference. 

I now learn that not only has the amount of $31,915.80, (which sum 
arose from funds returned where claimants could not be found, neces- 
sitating a canceling of their vouchers,) mentioned in General Vincent's 



45 

report as transferred to him, been properly adjusted at the Treasury- 
Department, but that the "final statement of differences'' is less than 
$3,754.(i9, the exact amount, as stated by the Second Auditor, being 
$2^889.49. Though this results from no fault of General Balloch, yet he 
has immediately paid the money, hoping that Congress will, at some 
time, give him relief. 

General Vincent says that " there is reason to believe that claimants 
have been defrauded." I know that some have, in spite of all the care 
and supervision I have been able to exercise, but in no sense is a sweep- 
ing statement of this kind fair. Thousands of complaints are made in 
ignorance, and upon examination it has been found that the loudest 
complaints have come tbrough certain dishonest claim-agents, who have 
been prevented from defrauding, and that, too, after clients, who are in- 
duced to write or say differently, have been paid every dollar to which 
they are entitled. 

If, at the close of five years to come, there are no complaints against 
the present paymasters in the bounty business, it will be because there 
is superior virtue in the officers of the Army, that can not only do right, 
but convince all the world of it, and control and prevent the expression 
of unfounded suspicion. 

Lastly. Major Brown has exi)lained all matters in regard to outstand- 
ing indebtedness. Copies of his letter to me, and mine to the Adjutant- 
General, are appended hereto, marked, respectively, A and B, with ac- 
companying documents marked A'^ and A^. 

GENERAL SUMMARY. 

I. Confused records. — 1st. Were caused by the carelessness of the 
agents in removing the records from Howard University to the War 
Department. 

2d. By the want of clerical aid, after the appropriation was exhausted, 
to keep the work up. At the time the work stopped the clerks were 
discharged for the want of funds to pay them, 

3d. By having a new force now in charge, with thousands and thou- 
sands of books, papers, and records of all kinds to search through and 
become familiar witb. 

4th. The implication of want of system and order previous to closing 
the Bureau is refuted by abundant testimony appended. 

II. IncomiAeteness and loss of records of assistant commissioners and 
local agents. — Accounted for from the nature of the work itself, multi- 
form and transitor3^ 

When reconstruction was comjilete much of the machinery was dis- 
pensed witb. 

When testimony of negroes was allowed in courts of law. Bureau 
courts and Bureau magistrates ceased. Permanency would have given 
regularity and order ; incompleteness was natural. Large numbers of 
local agents did what they could without even an office, suffered insults 
and met danger, but merely wrote letters, which are on file. The assist- 
ant commissioners are, almost without exception, men of national rep- 
utation and of high character. They will account for any incomplete- 
ness or keeping back of records. 

1 ordered all olficers and agents to send in their books, papers, and 
records, and i>laced an excellent clerk in charge of receiving and ar- 
ranging the archives. 

III. To account for ap2)arent deficit o/ 83,754.69. — 1st. The true amount 



46 

is less tlian that stated iu General Viuceut's report, according to the 
statement of the Second Auditor, being only $2,889.49. 

2d. The actnal amount is simply a "statement of differences," in pare 
to be explained by General Balloch. 

3d. The balance is, erroneous payments to wrong parties and to fraud- 
ulent claimants. The actual clerical mistakes in the disbursement of 
upward of J$8,000,000 of bounty-money iu five years, and in small pay- 
ments, are reported to be only $300. ^ 

4th. Ever3^ dollar due the Government has been paid by the disburs- 
ing officer, and he looli s to Congress alone for the proper relief from un- 
avoidable errors of payment. 

5th. I cannot find that I myself am accountable for one dollar of de- 
ficiency. To square my bounty accounts I deposited in the Treasury 
one cent, and hold the United States Treasurer's receipt therefor, and 
turned over to Capt. James McMillan, disbursing officer, $32 cash, for 
returned attorney's fees, for which I hold his receipt. 

IV. Major Brown's letter explains the subject of outstanding debts, 
showing he has forwarded schedules of them, and explaining why cer- 
tain possible old railroad transportation claims were omitted, the claim- 
ants not having complied with the orders of the Government. The sys- 
tem of issuing transportation was that adopted by the Quartermaster's 
Department of the Armj^ 

I^ot one particle of evidence of fraud has been shown me that I have 
not myself reported to the honorable Secretary of War, and I assure 
the committee and my countrymen that I do not cover any wrong-doing 
whatever. 

With a clear conscience, a consciousness of much labor well per- 
formed, and a trust that God will defend the right, 
I remain yours, with respect, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General United States Armi!, late Commissioner 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Ahandoned Lands. 

P. S. — I have the honor to call attention to the communications hereto 
appended from General E. Whittlesey, late acting assistant adjutant- 
general of Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands; General 
George W. Balloch, and Maj. J. M. Brown, late disbursing officer ; J. 
W. Alvord, esq., late superintendent education ; Dr. Robert Rey- 
burn, late chief medical officer ; John H. Cook, esq., late chief clerk ; 
and D. S. Blue, esq., late clerk in the disbursing office; marked, respect- 
ively, Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, G, and 7. 
Very respectfully, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General United States Army, late Commissioner 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Ahandoned Lands. 



Washington, D. C, January 20, 1873. 
General E. D. Townsend, 

Ailjutant-Getural, United States Army : 

SiK : Iu reply to your counuuuicatiou of the 2cl instant, calling attention to the fact 
that no schedule of outstanding debts had been furnished, as required by paragraph 
1009 Revised Army Regulations, I have the honor to inclose Maj. J. M. Brown's com- 
munication on that subject. 

At the close of the Bureau, Major Brown had charge of the disbursing office, and he 
informs me that there were no outstanding debts except for transportation. The un- 
liaid bills, turned over to Major McMillan, were received during the last year, and are 
over three years old. Circular No. 2, March 10, 1809, cuts off all transportation after 



47 

the 20tb of March, 1869, and circular letter of July 19, 1869, notifies all railroad com- 
panies not to receive any transportation order after the 31st of that month. 

Still later my chief quartermaster notified every railroad company, on which trans- 
portation orders had been given, that thej^ ninst at once send in their bills. 

These were paid as fast as received nntil I had no more money to pay them with. 
The very complete records of this branch of my quartermaster's ofBce were turned over, 
and the only way to ascertain the outstanding accounts would be to compare the amount 
of orders issued with the amount of those paid, and even then, as Major Brown very 
properly suggests, the result would be only an approximation, for many of these orders 
were never used, and some were not taken up by the railroad companies, although 
transportation was procured upon them. 

I have the honor to inclose copies of the circulars above referred to. I regret that I 
cannot send you a copy of the printed letter of my chief quartermaster to the railroad 
companies. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
JBrigadier-General United Slates Army, late Commissioner 

Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 
A true copy : 

J. A. Sladex, 

United States Army. 



B. 

Washingtox, D. C, January 10, 1873. 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

United States Army, late Commissioner 

Bureau oj Refugees, Freedmen and Aiandoned Lands : 
Sir : Referring to your indorsement of January 6, (on a communication from the 
Adjutant-General, January 2,) requesting me to furnish schedule showing outstanding- 
debts of late Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, as required by para- 
graph 1009 Revised Army Regulations, I have the honor to reply : 

In my communication of July 1, 1872, to Capt. James McMillan, disbursing officer, I 
forwarded all the outstanding debts of the Bureau which existed to my knowledge, 
these debts comprising sundr^^ transportation accounts. 

The system of transportation service in use by the Quartermaster's Department of 
the Army was adopted in full by the Buieau. The blank-books of transportation orders, 
duly numbered and registered, were purchased from that Department. Many of these 
transportation orders, issued to freedmen, were never used, consequently it would be 
impossible to obtain an accurate statement of the amounts due the transportation 
companies until they present their accounts. 

A full and complete record of all transportation issued is in the qnartermaster's divis- 
ion of the Bureau records ; to deduct the amount issued from the amount paid would 
give only an approximation to the result desired. 

Nearly four years having elapsed since any transportation orders were issued. In 
transferring to my successor the unpaid accounts in my possession, I decided it was 
a compliance with paragraph 1009 Revised Army Regulations, as far as my knowledge 
and the clerical force at command would enable me to comply. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. M. BROWN, . 
Disbursing Officer late Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

A true copy : 

J. A. Sladex, A. B. C. 



A'^. — Discontinuance of transportation.. 

War Departmext, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen axd Abaxdoned Lands, 

Washington, March 10, 1869. 

[Circular No. 2.] 

After the 20th instant no transportation in kind will be furnished by this Bureau' 
will be furnished for officers, agents, teachers, school-books, or stores. 

Officers, agents, and employes of this Bureau, traveling under orders, will collect 
actual traveling expenses, or mileage, in accordance with existing orders and regula- 
tions. 

No expense for transportation will be incurred, except when absolutely necessary. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Major-General, Commissioner. 
Official : ' 

. J. A. Sladen, a. D. C. 



48 

"A^." — Xotice to railroads, ^c, no longer to receive transportation-orders issned hij this 

liureau. 

War Department, 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmex axd Abaxdoxed Lands, 

Washington, D. C, July 19, 1869. 

[Circular letter.] 

Agents of railroad compauies, and of other established lines of communication, are 
informed that no transportation-orders, either for passengers or freight, have been 
issued from these headquarters since March 20, 1869 ; and they are hereby notified not 
to receive, after the thirty-first instaut, transportation-orders or bills of lading here- 
tofore issued by this Bureau. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brevet Major-Gcneral, United States Army, Commissioner. 

Official : 

J. A. Sladen, a. D. C. 



No. 1. 



Washington, Junuartj 30, 1873. 

Dear Sir: When the "Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands" was 
transferred to the War Department, the records of the Bureau adjutant's office were 
complete, every letter and paper having been properly entered and tiled up to date of 
receiving the orders of the Secretary of War for removal, viz, June 26, 1872. 

The " archive-room," so called, was filled with books and papers forwarded from the 
several States by officers and agents when discharged. To index these books, to brief 
and file these papers, the labor of several clerks was needed, but they could not be 
employed for want of funds. One clerk was detailed to give a portion of bis time to 
receiving and arranging the records, and he (sometimes assisted by others) had classi- 
fied them by States, so that they could be consulted with ease. Had they been re- 
moved with care, and replaced in their proper cases, the work of indexing and briefing 
might have been taken up where it was suspended, and the classification could have 
been perfected. But in the removal, by some one's mistake, (I was sick and cannot 
tell who was responsible for it,) the records of that room seem to have been regarded 
as simply wagon-loads of paper, and to have been handled witli very little respect. 

As to the claim and bounty divisions, I will only say that they were not under my 
charge ; but I know that work was in a great measure suspended because it was neces- 
sary to discharge the old and well-trained clerks. I did all in my power to obtain from 
Congress ai)propriations to continue and complete the work in your hands. In your 
absence, (in New Mexico and Arizona,) I a^^pealed to the committees of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives for means to close up the affiiirs of the Bureau in such a 
manner as to do you credit and to save your successor from embarrassment. 1 failed, 
and, by no fault of yours, some temporary inconvenience is the result. 
Very respectfully, » 

E. WHITTLESEY, 
Late Acting Assistant Adjutant-General, 

General O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner. 



No. 2. 

Washington, D. 0., January 31, 1873. 

Dear Sir : In looking over General Vincent's report to Congress, I notice that con- 
siderable is said about the various offices in the Freedmcn's Bureau being in great con- 
fusion when the ati'airs were turned over to him. 

_ I wish to say, in respect to the office formerly under my charge, that when I was re- 
lieved I left it in the same condition in which it always had been kept— in perfect 
order. The books showing the expenditures under the various appropriations were 
all posted nj), and all the vouchers and documents carefully and systematically ar- 
rang(!d in i i'.r cases. 

I am tan .iarwith the methods of conducting business in several of the Departments 
of the Government, and think that the system of my office would compare favorably 
with any of them. 



49 

It any confusion exists, it must be the result of moving the books and papers to the 
War Department. Without wishing to reflect upon any oue, I must say, from ivhat I 
accidentally saw of the manner in which the moving was done, I only wonder that 
anything can be found. 

In relation to the difference of $3,754.69 between the amounts of the certificates and 
the funds turned over, I would remark that on the 27th of this mouth I received from 
the honorable Second Auditor an official " statement of difterences" on the final settle- 
ment of my accounts which had just been completed, and the difference against me is 
$2,889.49, (instead of the amount above given,) and the same has this day been turned 
over to Capt. James McMillan, the disbursing officer of the War Department. Of this 
amount $2,.5I56.13 arises from having to pay claims the second time, that had been paid 
on fraudulent representations to the wrong parties. This leaves only $353.36 to cover 
the clerical errors of disbursements of over $8,000,000, running through a period of over 
five years. 

When the peculiar character of these disbursements is considered, the difficulties ia 
the way of carrying out the requirements of the bounty laws, I ask in all sincerity who 
could have done any better ? 



Very respectfully, 



General O. O. Howard. 



GEO. W. BALLOCn, 

Late Chief Dlsbnrsing Officer 
Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



No. 3. 



Washisgtox, February 1, 1873. 

Sir : In reply to your communication of 29th ultimo, requesting me to state the con- 
dition of my office previous to transfer, with copy of order issued by you at time of 
transfer ; explaining cause of confusion of records, if any existed ; also, m reference to 
alleged w\ant of proper schedule of indebtedness, I have the honor to state : 

I was placed in charge of the disbursing branch of your office February 5, 1872, and 
continued in charge until its close, June 30, 1872, a period of nearly five mouths. Soon 
after taking charge, the appropriation of Congress being nearly exhausted, the Acting 
Commissioner (during your absence in Arizona) directed, with the advice of the Secre- 
tary of War, the discharge of all agents and most of tbe clerks. This entirely prevent- 
ed the current business of the office from being properly conducted. Yet the records 
of all receipt and disbursement of moneys by me were accurately and fully kept — tbe 
monthly returns promptly rendered to the Treasury Department. This occupied the 
time of the clerks retained, and a great many letters received could not be briefed, 
entered, or answered. 

The records of my own office were, at the date of the transfer to the Adjutant-Gen- 
eral, except as above stated, in complete order. Some confusion of books and papers 
necessarily arose from the manner in which the moving was conducted, the men em- 
ployed by the War Department removing the books and papers loosely in baskets 
and wagons, instead of tying up and labeling each set separately when taken from 
the file-cases. Still, I cannot learn that any record-book or papers in my charge is 
missing. 

Your written orders (no copy of which I now have) and verbal instructions in refer- 
ence to the moving of the records were complied with as far as I was able with the 
force under my control. 

In regard to a schedule of indebtedness, I forwarded, July 1, 1872, to the Adjutant- 
General all the outstanding accounts known to exist against the Bureau, amounting to 
about $1,000, due sundry transportation companies. No transportation-orders having 
been issued since March, 1869, the companies had over three years to render their ac- 
counts. It was known that many transportation-orders issued were never used. No 
exact statement coukl be given until the transportation companies present their ac- 
counts, if any are still outstanding. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

J. M. BROWN, 

Late Disbursing Officer 
Bureau Eefmjees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

General O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 
H. Ex. 10 4 



50 

No. 4. 
J. W. Ai.voKD, rresidcnt. Geo. W. Sticknev, Adiiafi;. 

Principal Office of the 
Tkeeumax's Savin(;.s and Tuust Comp.vky, 

Washington, I). C, January 31, 1873. 

Genekai. : Iliave the bouor to state that the records of the educational departiueut 
of the Freedmeu's Bureau, which you placed uuder my supervisiou at headquarters, 
were, at the time of my resignation, arranged in excellent order ; the reports of super- 
intendents and letters received, except a small portion of current work, tiled away ; all 
documents usually transcribed in books called "letters received," "letters sent," and 
"record of reports," were entered and fully indexed. My ten semi-annual reports, 
containing the substance of the whole work, both general and statistical, were en- 
grossed in folio-volumes provided for the purpose, accompanied by a complete atlas of 
drawings, showing the precise location and grade of all imijortant schools in the South 
under the care of the Bureau ; the whole, in my judgment, forming a set of archives of 
unusual completeness. 

Very respectfully, yours, &.C., 

J. W. ALVORD, 
FAitc General SnperinteHdent Freedmen''s Schools. 
Maj. Gen. 0. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Ahandoned Lands. 



No. 5. 

Washington, D. C, January 30, 1873. 

Sin: In reply to your communication dated January 29, 1873, I have the honor to 
state that I was on duty as a medical officer in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands from July 22, 18(55, to June 30, 1872. 

From the records of this office I fiud that the greatest number of hospitals existing 
in the Bureau was in 1867, when there were in operation 56 hospitals, with a capacity 
of 5,000 beds, and 48 dispensaries and out-door stations. 

The total number of freed people treated from July, 186.5, to June 30, 1872, was 
430,466; and the total number of white refugees treated during the same period was 
22,053. 

The total number furnished with food and medical attendance during the existence of 
the Bureau approximates 870,000. 

In the District of Columbia alone nearly 85,000 freed people were furnished with 
medicines, medical attendance, and food from the Bureau during its existence. 

Tlie reports of sick and wounded, &c., of the medical department of the Bureau were 
furnished to this office at the end of every month by the medical officers of the Bureau 
and by the surgeons-in-chief of each district. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ROBERT REYBURN, M. 1)., 
LMte Chief Medical Officer Bureau Ecfagecs, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau Eefugecs, Freedmen and Ahandoned LAinds, 

Washington, 1). C. 



No. G. 

Washinutox, D. C, January 31, 1873. 

General: Referring to vour note of the 29th instant, in regard to the condition of 
the records of the Bureau of Rcfngises, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands previous to 
transfer to the War Department, I liave the honor to make the following reply: 

The records of the Adjutant-General's office of the Bureau were in good condition : 
papers arranged, and all tiled away in cases provided for the purpose, together with com- 
])lete volumes of>" letters received," " letters sent," &c., including " index-books." 
This statement is esx)ecially true of the records of the educational department at head- 
quarters. 

On withdrawing the Bureau from the South, except the bounty branch, it was 
found that the recoixls sent up from the various States required considerable woik in 
so preparing them tliat clerks, wliolly unfamiliar with thein, might obtain with fa- 



51 

cility iuforuiatiou daily called for iu your office, aud especially in communications 
referred from the honorable Secretary of War for report. Months were spent with a clerk 
or two, taken from some other equally important duty, iu doing something toward arrang- 
ing, assorting, labeling, and indexing these records, in order that the reports referred to 
might be given without delay. These records, known as " archiv^es," including the 
books and papers of the discontinued educational department, were all arranged ia 
good and neat order, by States, in two large rooms provided with conveniences for the 
purpose, and, together with those of the Adjutaut-Geueral's Office, were the only records 
under my immediate control. 

With regard to the records of the disbursing and bounty divisions, it is true that 
communications coming into these departments bad not been entered for three or four 
months before the discontinuance of the Bureau, but it must not be forgotten that the 
performance of that work was prevented by the discharge of nearly all the clerks from 
these divisions in accordance with the orders of the Secretary of War on account of 
exhaustion of funds. 

When the Bureau was discontinued iu July last, demand was at once made for the 
rapid transfer of all the records. Modest and repeated suggestions were made that it 
would not be well to attempt the immediate removal of all the records, and especially 
not those known as "archives " from the various States, because if not kept separate, 
and arranged as they were delivered, great confusion would be the result; Reply was 
made that the chaos and confusion resulting from the discontinuance of the " Provost- 
Marshal-General's Department " had been straightened, and any such result in this case 
would not prove insurmountable. No attention was paid to the suggestion, but half a 
dozen or more quartermaster's and other wagons were driven up, on or about the 28th 
of June, and in three or four dai/s the records of the entire Bureau placed into them, hur- 
ried away to the building in which they are now located, and pitched into it from cel- 
lar upward. I was present at the buildmg several times, having accompanied wagons 
to preserve important books and papers, aud saw them mixed aud scattered in every 
direction. The clerks in charge of the bounty and disbursing books and papers were 
devoted in their efforts to care for them, aud frequently expressed great anxiety at the 
manner of transfer. 

Although, by an order from the War Department, you were made' responsible for the 
transfer of the records, yet it is a fact that the clerks given charge by the Adjutant- 
General of the Army came to the rooms of the Bureau and assumed charge of the 
whole transfer, hardly allowiug your own clerks discretion even in the matter of de- 
livery. Of course we did not presume to interfere with the confusion at the point of 
destination. The disposition displayed by employes of the War Department was such 
as to preclude us from taking the liberty of making any further suggestions. Indeed, 
for weeks before the transfer, rumors were circulated from the War Department that 
the connection of no officer, clerk, or messenger of the Bureau would be continued or 
tolerated after June 30. 

In regard to any iucompleteness in the records which may actually exist, and of 
which the records themselves are the best evidence, I cannot refrain from adding a 
W'ord. You will remember your anxiety aud continued efforts to secure an appropria- 
tion sufficient to enable you to place the records of the Bureau in such condition as 
that the history of its entire work might be intelligible ou the most casual examina- 
tion. You will remember, too, your signal failure to secure either sympathy or inter- 
est, or to obtain the necessary money for the purpose; aud you will, perhaps, recall the 
frequent expressions of fear ou the part of your frieuds that eventually you would be 
severely criticised, censured, and placed in unenviable light before the country for not 
having done what you were prevented from doing. 

I am, general, with great respect, your obedient servant, 

JNO. H. COOK, 
Late Chief Clerk Bureau Eefuf/ees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 

General O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. 



No. 7. 



Wasiiixgtox, D. C, January 30, 1873. 
Gkneral : In reply to your rcfpiest of the 29th instant, I have the honor to report 
that, agreeably to your former request, I visited the new bounty-disbursing office at the 
War Department^ and examined aud explained to the chief clerk the books pertaining 
to the appropriations by Congress to the Bureau while under your administration; 
also the books pertaining to the refugees and freedmen's fund; and am confident that 
the books, as a record, are complete within themselves, and show a true statement of 



52 

all moneys received, and how the same was expended to October, 1371, when my con- 
nection with them ceased. 

In regard to the system in the disbursing office of the Bureau in the payments of 
bounty, arrears of pay, and prize-money, it was very plain and easily understood. 

1st. The certificates for the payment of bounty, &c., were forwarded by the Second 
Auditor of the Treasury to the disbursing officer for payment; after an examination 
they were entered into a book for registry, kept for that purpose, stating name of 
claimant, with company, regiment, and amount of claim, name of attorney, and amount 
due for services. 

2d. Said certificates are then entered in bounty cash-book, and a statement of the 
amount, with certificates, forwarded to the Paymaster-General, who forwarded his 
check for the amount to the disbursing officer for payment of said claims. Vouchers 
are then made out (in duplicate) and forwarded to the agent for the claimant's signa- 
ture, when, upon their return duly signed, checks are drawn for their payment and 
amount entered on bounty cash-book ; the vouchers for the same are duly abstracted, 
and one set forwarded to the Auditor ; the other detaiued and filed. The same course 
is taken in payment of attorneys' fees. The records pertaining to bounty-claims and 
attorneys' fees were complete, and any infomation concerning them could be answered 
inimediivtely. If the records were incomplete at thei^ime of their transfer to the War 
Department, it was caused by the want of clerical force necessary for that purpose, all 
but two having been discharged from the want of an appropriation to pay them, some 
four months previous to their transfer, and the services of the two remaining clerks 
must have been mostly occupied by ausweriug the necessary correspondence of the 
office. 



Very respectfully, &c. 
General O. O. Howard. 



DAVID S. BLUE. 



G. 

War Department, 
WasJiingtonj D. C, February 28, 1873, 

As connected with a previous report on the condition. of affairs of the 
Freednjeu's Bureau, (Executive Document, House of Kepreseutatives, 
No. 100, Forty-second Congress, third session,) the Secretary of War 
Las the honor to submit to the House of Eepresentatives a communi- 
cation from As.st. Adj. Gen. Thomas M. Vincent, in reply to the commu- 
nication from General O. O. Howard, hite Commissioner of the Bureau of 
Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, printed in Miscellaneous 
Document, House of Eepresentatives, jS^o. 87, Forty-second Congress, 
third session. 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 



Wak Dkpakt.ment, Adjutant-Genkkal's Office, 

Wa>ihmijlon,D. C, February 20, 1873. 

Sir : Under the reference to mo, on the l.^ith instant, by the Secretary of War, of the 
communication from General O. O. Howard, late Commissioner of the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands, to the chairman of the Committee on Military Affiiirs, 
House of Representatives, (Miscellaneous Document 87, Forty-second Congress, third 
session,) I have the honor to submit as follows : 

In my previous report, (Executive Document No. 109, Forty-second Congress, third 
session,) which has led to the communication now under consideration from the late 
Commissioner, I stated that I had designated to him the place for delivery of the records, 
«fcc., to your charge. There is no doubt as to the understanding of the Commissioner 
that the responsibility of the Adjutant-General's Office for the records should commence 
from the dates of delivery, as so arranged. He so understood, not only through the ar- 
rangement made by me in person with him but from the letter addressed to him June 29, 
(copy herewith, A.) That letter, framed by me and submitted to you for approval 



53 

and signature, was the result of a report to me that his employes were not exercising 
care at the Bureau in haurtling the records. 

There were furnished, for the use of the Commissioner, wagons, (mostly express,) 
laborers, boxes, and baskets, twine, and, except clerks, everytliiug else necessary to 
enable him to meet his responsibility. The boxes and baskets were specially adapted 
for the removal of records. All these were jdaced subject to bis exclusive coutrol. 

Therefore, having done all that fell to my charge to enable the Commissioner to 
perform his part, it was not my sphere to step outside my responsibility in order to 
infringe or assume his, thus to show, in my former report, " how a considerable portion 
of this confusion (of records) was produced." 

I visited the Commissioner but once — not several times, as he has stated — and that 
one visit was not to see if his records were confused, but to arrange for the transfer, 
and to fix the time when the responsibility of the Adjutant-General's Office for them 
would begin. 

From what follows it will appear that the clerical force in the employ of the late 
Bureau, after the failure of the appropriation, and during the transfer, was of but 
little value, and that, as to it, the portion of the appropriation available was not use- 
fully expended. Of the eleven clerks and agents employed before and at the time of 
transfer, eight of the clerks were students of Howard University, employed on half- 
time, at rate, each, of fifty dollars per month. With but one exception no member of 
the half-time force had been in the employ of the Bureau a year, and their duties 
■were confined to copying or indexing. They did not bear a character for efficiency. 
Had "clerical aid" been viewed as of value after the appropriation was exhausted, 
the public good demanded that experienced aid should have been employed, and that 
object could have been attained by the employment of three good clerks at a compen- 
sation of .$133.33^^ per month — total $400 — instead of the eight at $50 per month, aggre- 
gating the same amount. 

Moreover, as stress is laid on the want of clerical aid after the appropriation was 
exhausted, it may be asked if payments for other objects were not made after the ex- 
haustion ? Was the clerical aid viewed as of secondary value ? Did the officers, 
agents, and clerks composing the reduced force give their entire official time to the 
duties f 

My suggestion led to the non-retention and discharge of the clerks of the late 
Bureau, aud was made for the sole reason that I desired to meet my responsibility 
througli employes known to me, by observation and experience, as elficieut and reli- 
able. Results have indicated that I was right in so doing. It is proper, however, to 
add that I retained the only gentleman, as clerk, who was recommended to me for 
retention, and who, in connection with the recommendation, marked himself by intelli- 
gence, energy, and care during the transfer. Therefore, as eight clerks were of little 
or no value, it is seen that but two others — there being eleven agents and clerks in 
all — are left with any chauce for coniplant as to being cut off from Government em- 
ployment. When their rights to retention shall have been established, it will be time 
to discuss the hardship of their discharge. 

The late Commissioner did not exert his power, as he has alleged, to keep my agents 
straight. 1 kept my agents under my own instructions, and they kept themselves 
straight through their sense of propriety and fidelity to the public duty. In conse- 
quence, besides faithfully and fully dischai'ging their official duty, they have rendered 
the late Bureau a great service. That holding I was not prepared to hear, for the first 
time, through the Commissioner's communication, that there had been apparently ati 
attempt to view the late Commissioner's office with contempt aud bring it into dis- 
grace. It cannot be established that any of my agents so acted. 

The Commissioner did issue directions to his employes (see B, herewith) to keep 
them straight, and I am content to let that letter, in counectiou with the oue (A) from 
the Adjutant- General, which led to it, speak for itself. 

If confusion was produced by " the disappearance of records lost in transitu, stolen, 
or destroyed," the Commissioner, who was aud is responsible for such disappearance, 
should at once have made report for the information of the Secretary of War in regard 
to said losses, stealings, and destructions. So with the " commissary work," if its record 
has "been burned up or otherwise destroj'ed." 

The confusion of records has been made, in part, to disappear by the employment by 
this office of old and experienced clerks — gentlemen versed in duties kindred to those 
of the late Bureau. Twelve such, taken from those long in service of the Adjutant- 
General's Office at date of transfer, were employed iu receiving the records at the 
designated place of delivery, and bringing order out of confusion. As the confusion 
was by them made to disappear, the allegation that the new force " now in charge" 
produced confusion necessarily falls. The first clerk from outside the office was not 
employed until August 8, after the transfer had been completed. 

No part of the confusion can be traced to or established against any officer, agent, 
or clerk of the Adjutant-General's Office, but must remain attached to the late Bu- 
reau, and as existing prior to the records being placed in the wagons for transfer to 



54 

the Adjutant-Geueral's Office. I concur that it may have been produced, in part, by 
the neglect of the "irritated and disappointed" force in its employ. 

The " want of system and order previous to the transfer of the Bureau " is more ap- 
parent as the present system is advanced. 

I am constrained to say that the " disbursing office," at and for some time prior to the 
transfer, the most important of the late Bureau, was not well kept, and there were 
records wanting at the time General Balloch, the disbursing officer, was discharged. 

Although the officer in charge of it disbursed vast sums of money annually, and 
necessarily held extensive correspondence with claimants, agents, and others through- 
out the various States, he kept uo record of '' letters received" until January 1, 1871 ; 
and a miscellaneous collection of letters, some thousands, unrectu'dcd and unbriefed, 
received with the records of that office, can only be presumed as comprising all the 
correspoiulence covering a period of nearly four years, dating from the period money 
to the colored soldiers was made payable through the Freedmen's Bureau. No copies 
of " letters sent," for the same period, were kept, except in press copy-book, many let- 
ters in which have already become illegible. Most of these letters are of au important 
character, and all relate more or less to disbursements. .The public intei'est demanded 
their most careful and permanent preservation. For the same period there is no record 
of indorsements on letters sent out. 

As the books of " letters received," " letters sent," and indorsements are, in every well- 
regulated office of the War Department, of the first importance, their absence or de- 
fective condition is condemning evidence not only of au imperfect record, but that the 
office so conducting its business was not " well kept." 

As indicating that the records of the disbursing officer were deficient, defective, and 
unreliable, I may refer — 

I. To a certain retained-bounty fund. Under the act of March 2, 1867, (14 Stats., p. 
Mb.) the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, or his successor in office, was consti- 
tuted the lawful custodian of a certain irregular fuiul, then in the possession of the 
said Bureau, and appointed trustee of the same for the benefit " of certain colored 
soldiers." 

Under General Orders No. .5.5, of 1872, from the War Department, that fund shoiild 
have been transferred or accounted for to the Adjutant-General's Office. But, instead 
of its being so transferred or accounted fiu-, this office did not know of it until on or 
aboiit the 7th of January, 1873, when the late Commissioner was called upon for in- 
formation concerning it, (copy herewith, C.) 

That led to the production of a book from the disbursing officer purporting to show 
the names of the soldiers to whom the funds belonged, and the amounts paid and due 
to each. 

The book indicates that $110,974.67 had l)een paid, and, in connection with $1,628.59 
not expended, that the total amount of the fund was $112,603.26, although report of 
the entire amount has not yet been made. (The report of the Commissioner for the 
year 1865 states the amount received as $115,2?6.49.) The last action of the Secretary 
of War in regard to the said fund will appear from a letter herewith, (D.) 

So far as is now known, the disbursing officer rendered no accounts for the disburse- 
ment of the said fund, and failed to take vouchers for the payments made fi'om it. 

Why, at least, was not a statement submitted to this office showing — 

1. Total amount of said fund received. 

2. Amount, if any, of increase through investment of United States bonds. 

3. The distribution, if any, for the benefit of the said soldiers or their legal repre- 
sentatives. 

4. The total amount paid out. 

II. The late disbnrsnig officer (Gener.nl Balloch) testified before the court-martial 
for the trial of Maj. B. P. Eunkle that Runkle brought him vouchers unjiaid ; that he 
then allowed Eunkle to sign, as a witness to the payment, and received them from 
him as paid. These vouchers were sent, with Balloch's accounts, to the Treasury as 
paid, and entered in the bounty-register, then under his charge, as paid. 

III. The claims covered by the $31,678.83 were all entered by the disbursing officer 
in the bounty-register of his office as i^aid, when, as has been remarked and shown, they 
were not paid. 

Therefore, considering the "bounty-register " was transferred to this office for its 
guide, and as complete, truthful, and accurate, and that the defective record as to the 
retained-bounty fund was not transferred until called for, how can it be said that the 
records " were well kept ?" Were the records of the disbursing office, as transferred, 
" complete, truthful, and reliable f ' Has General Howard refuted, as alleged by him, 
"byalmudant testimony appended " to his communication now under consideration, 
the imjjlication that there was " want of system and order?" 

The incompleteness and loss of records of assistant commissioners and local agents 
Is admitted by the Commissioner. Lists have been furnished him, and he has under- 
taken to have them sent in. 

The letter of January 28, 1873, (copy herewith, E,) transmitting the said lists, not 



55 

only illustrates the incompleteness of the archives, but refers to a very important 
defect in the records of the late Bureau proper, resulting by the absence therefrom of 
any definite or perfect record of the title to real estate and other property, formerly 
held by the Bureau and by it conveyed to other parties. Some of the property is now 
the subject of action by the courts, and in regard to it little or no information can be 
obtained to subserve the ends of justice in the protection of the righttul owners. 

The Commissioner admits that the abandoned laud division was not well systema- 
tized. 

The hospital division is not under this office. 

We have little or no reference to the " commissary work " records. They are as 
transferred to us ; and the same remark is applicable to the quartermaster division. 

The records of the school or educational division are as transferred, but our limited 
experience thus far with them has not indicated that they are complete. 

As to the deficit of $3,754.69, (see correspondence, D, p. 12, Executive Document 109,) 
it was determined iu this office by careful labor. If the Auditor has found it less, 
through his records, it is owing to our records, as received from the late Bureau, being 
defective. It may be remarked that when the transfer of Ihe claims and the funds to 
pay them was made to this office not one word was said as to there being a deficiency. 
We found it out by our own examination. 

It is condemnatory of the late Bureau and of General Balloch, as it would be of any 
office or officer, that the Treasury Department canceled vouchers, covering upward 
of |31,915.86, because they had been filed as evidence of payment, and in order to ob- 
tain credit for the amount when payment had not been made on them. And the 
matter presents itself in a more condemnatory light when it is considered that neither 
the late Commissioner nor General Balloch made known to the Treasury officers the 
fact of non-payment. The accounts might have been adjusted so far as the disbursing 
officer was concerned, and a credit given him on the said false vouchers, had it not been 
for the action of this office. (!See Executive Document 109, pp. 10, 11, and 12.) 

The Auditor has not notified this office of the final result of its examination of 
General Balloch's accounts, nor has this to do with the final adjustment of them 
further than to furnish from our records information bearing on them. 

The special settlement asked for by the Secretary of War December 19, 1872, (see 
M of correspondence in Executive Document 109,) when officially made known to the 
Secretary by the Auditor, will show whether or not every dollar due the Government 
has been paid by the disbursing officer. 

The late Commissioner's accountability will appear from a letter from the Auditor 
herewith, (F.) 

The cases wherein claimants have been defrauded, as well as those wherein they 
have not receiA^id their moneys, have been, and will be as rapidly as ascertained, 
reported to the Second Auditor of the Treasury, with whom rest further proceedings 
in order to final action. Through that action the responsibility for all frauds com- 
mitted will be determined and fixed. 

As regards the communications of a few of the late employt?s of the Bureau, (sub- 
mitted by the late Commissioner as " abundant testimony " to refute the implication as 
to want of system,) they are substantially embodied in General Howard's letter itself. 
I notice them, however, for the purpose of pointing out a few of their incongruities and 
palpable errors. 

Mr. John H. Cook, late chief clerk, says : "Modest and repeated suggestions were 
made that it would not be well to attempt the immediate removal of all the records, 
and especially not those known as 'archives' from the various States ; because, if not 
kept separate and arranged as they were delivered, great confusion would be the re- 
sult." In the same paragraph he further states : " No attention was paid to the sug- 
gestion, but half a dozen or more quartermaster's and other wagons were driven up on 
or about the 28th of June, and in three or four days (the italics are his own) the records 
of the entire Bureau placed into them, hurried away to the building iu which they are 
now located and pitched into it from cellar upward." 

General Whittlesey says, in reference to these " archives :" " But, in the removal, by 
some one's mistake, (I was sick and cannot tell who was responsible for it,) the records 
of that room seem to have been regarded as simply wagon-loads of jiaper, and to have 
been handled with very little respect." 

Surely, if General Whittlesey was unable, by reason of sickness, to state who was 
responsible for the manner in which the records were transferred, it follows as a se- 
quence that, for the same reason, he would be unable to describe the manner in which 
they were handled, and how they seemed to have been regarded. 

The fact is, however, but a small portion of the " archives" were removed at the time 
alleged, but remained at the Howard University during the whole month of July, their 
transfer to this office having been begun on the 1st and completed on the 3d day of Au- 
gust, 1872, at which time General Whittlesey was at Brunswick, Maine, as would ap- 
pear from letters from him on file in this office, dated. at that ijoint on July 24 and 
August 13, 1872, respectively. 



56 

In the removal of these records great care was exercised to obviate any and all such 
confusion as was feared by Mr. Cook, they beinj; first carefully and securely tied in 
packages and appropriately labeled, so that they might again be replaced or filed in 
their original order. 

It will be observed, therefore, that the mode of transfer of the "archives," though, 
perhaps, not because of, was nevertheless in accordance with, Mr. Cook's suggestions, 
which, he states, were modestly and repeatedly made, but received no attention. 

In conclusion, as the late Commissioner has stated that " clerks" were sent by me "to 
take the archives," and as Mr. Chief Clerk Cook has stated that "the clerks given 
chaige by the Adjutant General of the Army came to the rooms of the Bureau and 
assumed charge of the whole transfer," I desire special attention to the statement here- 
with, (G,) from the one and only clerk sent by me to the late Bureau. That one, it will be 
seen, was sent sit the request of an officer of the late Bureau. The great misapprehen- 
sion in regard to " clerks" being sent by me, and their vast assumption of authority and 
responsibility, is remarkable. Further, the statement of Mr. Moody will illustrate the 
examination and explanation of Mr. David S. Blue, " as to the books pertaining to the 
appropriations, by Congress, to the Bureau while under your (General Howard's) ad- 
ministration," * * * and as to " the books, as a record," being complete within 
themselves. 

I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 



The Adjltaxt-General of the Army, 

Washington, D. C. 



Assist an t A dju ta n t- General. 



War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, June 28, 1872. 
Sir : As there seems to be some misapprehension on the part of the clerks under your 
orders as to the time when the responsibility for the records now under transfer falls 
upon this office, I desire to invite attention to General Orders No. 55, current series, 
which directs the records, property, &c., to be delivered " at such jilace as the Adjutant- 
General may designate," and to say that, through Assistant Adjutant-General Vincent, 
I named to you the building in this city, corner of F and Seventeenth streets, as the 
place of delivery. My responsibility for the records, &c., will commence with the de- 
livery at the place indicated. 

I beg to suggest that you cause the fact to be fully known to those who, under your 
orders, are making the transfer, so as to avoid confusion and to positively fix the re- 
sponsibility. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant-General. 
The Commissioner of the Bureau 

Eefu(jeeSj Freedmex and Abandoned Lands, 

Uoward University, Washington, D. C. 



B. 

Office of the Commissioner 
Bureau Eefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Washington, D. C, Monday, July 1, 1872. 
M^.ioR : All the clerks and messengers are under your authority until the records of 
this office are delivered at the building designated. The clerks will assist Genera 
Vincent and his employ<5s in putting all documents and papers into such order as he 
shall require. 

Any employ^ who shall neglect or refuse to do this duty will be recommended for 
discharge without leave of absence. 
Yours truly, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 
Maj. J. M. Brown, 

Disbursing Officer and Chief Quartermaster. 



57 



War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 7, 1873. 
General : I have the honor to invite your attention to the act approved March 2, 
1867, entitled "An act to rej^nlate the disposition of an irregular fund in the custody 
of the Freedmen's Bureau," (U. S. Statutes at Large, volume 14, page 544,) and to in- 
form you that nothing can be found in the records recently transferred to this office 
pertaining to said irregular fund. 

I have, therefore, to respectfully request, for the information of the Secretary of 
War, that you will, at your earliest convenience, inform this office what records, if any, 
were kept relating to said fund, and the disposition made of the same. 
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assistant Adjutant-General. 
Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, 

United States Army, late Commissioner, cj-c. 



D. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 24, 1873. 
General : Referring to the irregular fund under the act of Congress, March 2, 1867, 
now before this office, through the Second Auditor, under certificate of deposit 6992, 
dated January 8, 1873, in your favor, for $1,628.59, the Secretary of War has decided 
the balance of the said fund should be transferred by you to the chief disbursing offi- 
cer of this office, and that you render to the proper accounting officer of the Treas- 
ury, through this office, your accounts of disbursements of said fund, accompanied by 
vouchers. 

Very respectfully, general, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Adjutant- General. 
Gen. O. O. Howard, 

Late Commissioner, 4'c. 

(Copy furnished Second Auditor for his information.) 



E. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, D. C, January 28, 1873. 

General : Referring to your letter of the 25th ult., I have the honor to transmit 
herewith a statement showing the offices of the late Freedmen's Bureau, whose records 
are missiug or deficient, with names of the officers and agents, and description of such 
records, so far as it is now practicable to furnish the same. 

It has been observed that such portion of the letter of the Secretary of War of the 
23d ultimo, as relates to the extent of the missiug records, and which you c^uote in 
your reply thereto, was a misquotation from the report on which said letter was based, 
and should have read, " the entire records of some of the local offices or agencies are 
missing." 

The fact that the records are now found to be so extensively deficient, serves to con- 
firm the views entertained by an officer of your staff", (Lieut. J. A. Sladen,) who, in a 
letter addressed to General E. Whittlesey, acting Assistant Adjutant-General, Bureau 
Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lauds, under date of December 13 1869, states : 
" I am inclined to believe that many of the agents, on their discharge, took with them 
either the books or papers, or both, or if not all, at least a great part of the records of 
their offices." Upou the letter of Lieutenant Sladen, it seems, was based your Circu- 
lar No. 8, of December 15, 1869, the requirements of which were evidently in a great 
measure disregarded. 

While the inconvenience necessarily resulting fi-om the absence of so large a portion 
of the records is too self-evident to require illustration, it is nevertheless thought well 
to make mention of the matter of purchases of property by the late Bureau to be used 
for educational purposes. Many of such transactions have already become subjects of 
litigation, and ai)plications are frequently made to this office for information affecting 
title, &c., in order that the rights of those holding the property in question by trans- 



58 

fer from tbo late Bureau may be properly defeiifled. In but few, if any, cases that have 
thus far arisen has this office been able to furnish the information called for, and prob- 
ably essential to the retention of property donated to trustees, or others, by the Gov- 
ernment for the purpose stated. In such and kindred cases has the want of a full and 
perfect record been already made plainly manifest. 

Access to the records of the late Bureau now in this office will be granted to yourself 
or to such officer of your staff as you may designate, in order to obtain any information 
that may be deemed calculated to facilitate your efforts to recover those missing.* 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

E. D. TOWNSEND, 

Jfljiitiuii-General. 
Brig. Gen. O. O. TTowakd, U. S. A., 

Laic ('ommis-iiotier Bureau Kefuqecs, Frcedmen, 

ami Ahaudoued Lands, Waaliinijlon. D. C. 



F. 

Treasury Depautmext, 

Second Auditor's Office, 

I'^ehruary 1, 1873. 
Sir : I have the honor to state that the account of General O. O. Howard has been set- 
tled in this office and reported to the Second Comproller for his decision thereon. Said 
settlement includes all disbursements made by the Freedmen's Bnreau on account of 
pay, bounty, &c., due colored soldiers, under resolution of March 29, 1867, from April, 
1867, to .Jniv, 1872, and shows a balance of $11,466.68 due the United States, differing 
$10,793.24 from his account. 
Very respectfully, 

E. B. FRENCH, Auditor. 
By .J. M. S. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 



G. 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

Washington, February 20, 1873. 

Ma.ior : I respectfully submit the following statement as to my connection with the 
removal of the records of the late Buieau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 
from the Howard University to the building corner of Seventeenth and F streets, des- 
ignated by the Adjutant-General of the Army as the place of delivery. 

In compliance with your instructions, I made arrangements with the depot quar- 
termaster for wagons and hired laborers, and eai'ly on the morning of the 28th of June 
they reported at the University for duty. 

About noon of that day Maj. J. M.. Brown, disbursing officer, called at the office, 
(disbursing branch,) and requested that Major McMillan or myself should go out to 
the University and see what was being done. He said that it was imjjossible to move, 
as was first intended, the cases with the papers in them, and, as I understood, wanted 
us to see for ourselves just how matters were. I informed you of his request, and you 
directed me to go at once. I was told by Major Brown to inquire for a Mr. Thompson, 
and, from what he said, was led to believe tliat he (Thompson) was the only employe 
of the Bureau whocould furnish me with reliable information in regard to tlie records. 

Upon my arrival at the University I found that but little had been done ; only one 
wagon had been loaded, although they had been there since 7 a. m. The clerks were, 
as stated by General Howard, " irritated and disappointed," and I soon came to the 
conclusion that but little if any assistance could be obtained from them. 

I at once ordered all the wagons but the one tlien loading to return to the city, and 
after having fully informed myself as to the condition of affairs, returned and reported 
to you ; this led to the communication of June 28, 1872, to General Howard. I will 
add here, that on the first day, the 28th June, no paper records (except probably a few 
stored in the desks) were delivered ; only a few books and empty cases and desks ; two 
wagon-loads in all, I believe. 

* The statement of missing or deficient records which accompanied this letter covered eleven (11) 
pages of legal-cap paper. 



59 

On tlie moiling of the 29tb I again went to the University with wagons of Knox's 
Express Company, boxes, baskets, twine, and such other articles as I thought necessary. 
The boxes furnished by Mr. Knox were made specially for work of this character. The 
baskets (large clothes-baskets) were selected on account of their fitness. About the 
usual office-hour, 9 a. m., some of the employes made their appearance, and the work 
commenced. 

The first office moved was that known as the chief disbursing office. The records 
consisted of eight large books, "bounty-registers," ten large "cash-books," forty-six 
" letter-press copy-books," " letters received and sent books," for the years 1871 and 
1872; several volumes of " cash-books," "ledgers," "journals," &c., pertaining to the 
various appropriations for the support of the Bureau, and a few miscellaneous record- 
books. The files of the office except "jackets" of " paid and unpaid" claims, were all 
in small cases, and were moved without disturbing a paper. The "jackets" were in 
three or four large cases. It was impossible to move them as they stood, therefore they 
were taken out and carefully secured with gum-bands or twine, and packed in the 
boxes or baskets. Labels or other marks were unnecessary, the first or outer jacket 
being the guide in replacing them. 

I remained at the University until one load was made up, and then came in with the 
wagon. I was there afterward, off and on ; once in company with Mr. Woodward. 

The statement in General Howard's communication that " the clerks given charge by 
the Adjutant-General of the Army came to the rooms of the Bureau and assumed charge 
of the whole transfer " is manifestly erroneous. I was the only clerk from this office 
who went to the University, except Mr. Woodward, who was there but a short time, 
not exceeding thirty minutes, and then our object was merely to view the records, and 
obtain a proper understanding in order that we might receive and arrange them in an 
intelligent manner. Of course, in my endeavors to facilitate matters, I helped while 
at the Bureau : took packages from the cases, tied them up, and placed them in boxes 
or baskets; and I did say that the work should be done in a certain way, and did all 
in my power to see that it was so done. 

But little actual work was done by any officer or employe of the Bureau except Mr. 
Thompson. The clerks (students of the University) were only on duty one-half time, 
three hours. 

Mr. Terry was busily engaged in closing up Major Brown's papers ; consequently Mr. 
Thompson had to depend on the laborers employed by this office, but under control of 
the late Bureau, to assist him in tying up the bundles. 

The same care was observed in moving the records of the other divisions or branches 
of the Bureau. Whenever practicable, the case was removed without disturbing itS 
contents, and, when necessary to take the papers from the cases, they were carefully 
secured by gum-bands or twine. And I am satisfied that said records were moved from 
the University to this office without loss, and with but little, if any, disorder. 

As to the " archives " or records of the States, they were not moved until the 1st, 2d, 
and 3d days of August. About the middle of July, Mr. Thompson, an em])loye of the 
late Bureau, went to the University to prepare those records for transfer. He was there 
a short time when he was obliged to go to Louisville, Ky., as a witness before the 
Kunkle court-martial, and his work was completed, in the absence of aid from the late 
Bureau, by a good and experienced clerk from this office. 

It being impossible to remove the cases in which said records were stored, some 
being fastened to the walls, it was necessary to remove them from the pigeon-holes. 
Each bundle as removed was. carefully secured with gum-bauds or twine, and these 
bundles were tied together with strong cord in packages convenient for packing in the 
boxes and baskets used in moving the other records. Each package was carefully 
labeled with the name of the State ; they were then carried to a room on the first floor 
of the Howard University, and arranged by States in piles ; the same with the book- 
records, they being iied up in packages convenient for handling, and all carefully 
labeled. When we were ready to receive them, they were moved with care in Knox's 
Express wagons, as far as possible only one State or part of a State at a time. As re- 
ceived, the same order was observed, and the greater portion of said papers are yet in 
the same bundles as when first removed. 

The confusion and mixed condition was developed upon our first attempt to re-arrange, 
and a great deal of it is found in the records specially arranged by the late Bureau em- 
ployes. In labeling these packages at the time of removal, the names of the States, as 
fastened to the cases, governed. 

Before closing, I desire to invite your attention to the annexed extracts* from the 
records referred to by Mr. D. S. Blue, in his communication appended to General 
Howard's. He states that these records are " complete within themselves." The ex- 
tracts answer that statement much better than anything I can say. They may be " a 
true statement of all moneys received and how the same was expended," but as records 

* Originals may be seen at the Adjutant-General's Office. 



60 

from which to obtain any iuformation as to any particular case they are comparatively 
valueless, for the reason that before you can obtain the iuforraatiou desired from them 
you must know all about the transa-jtiou, and even then, before intelligent action, re- 
ference would be necessary to the accounts of the disbursing officer in the Treasury 
Department. As to the explanation of the records stated to have been made to me, I 
learned nothing not known before. The fact is, I gave the clerks. Blue and Terry, a 
case — an inquiry as to how much had been advanced by General Howard to the " Le- 
land University" — and they were both obliged to admit that unless they knew the date 
when the advances were made, and have access to the accounts of the disbursing officer, 
they could not obtain from the books, said to be " complete within themselves," the 
information desired. They also, at mj* request, made search for a book which General 
Howard, one day while at this office, informed Major McMillan he kept, containing a 
record of all " promises," and from which he thought we could obtain the iuformation 
desired in the " Leland University" case. We discovered, when they found the 
book, that it was one well known to us ; it was, however, only a record of 
" orders and authorizations" to disbursing officers to advance money to the various 
institutions ; and there was nothing contained therein to show that the amount 
"promised," or any part thereof, was ever advanced, nor can I find, after a thorough 
search, any record other than those above mentioned, fi'om which iaformation of this 
character may be obtained. 

I am, sir, very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

JOHN S. MOODEY, 
Chief Clerk, Chief Disbursing Officer. 

Maj. Thomas M. Ves'Cent, 

Assistant Adjutant-General. 



Exhibit B. — Contiuned/ 
Part 2(1. 

[House Ex. Doc. 10, part 2, Forty-third Congress, 1st session.] 
BUREAU OP EEFUGEES, FEEED3IEN A^'D ABA^^DONED LA>'DS. 

Letter from the Secretary of War, transmitting certain additional de- 
velopments connected with the late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 
Abandoned Lands. January 7, 1874:. Referred to the Committee on 
Military Affairs and ordered to he printed. 

"War Depaet3ie>-t, 
Washington, D. C, January o, 1874. 

Sir : In connection with my communication of December 4, 1873, 
(Executive Document 10, Forty-third Congress, first session,) relative to 
developments connected Avith the late Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen 
and Abandoned Lands, I have the honor to report, for the information 
of the House of Representatives, the following- additional : 

December 19, ultimo, the Adjutant-General of the Army completed 
an investigation, based upon official reports, furnished for my informa- 
tion, over the signatures of the Treasurer of the United States and the 
accounting officers (Second Comptroller and Third Auditor) of the 
Treasury, and the following day report was made to me. The result, as 
thus determined and submitted, involves (through George W. Balloch, 
late disbursing officer) the responsibility and accountability of the late 
Commissioner, and shows that funds of the United States duly certified 
as deposited with the United States Treasurer and in other depositories 
were not so deposited. The deficits, or amounts overstated by the dis- 
bursing officer, are, for the United States Treasury, Washington, D. C, 
as indicated in the following, for the last days of the respective months: 



186^ 



June 89, 175 54 

October 23, 686 23 

December 126, 729 61 



July sl6, 273 71 

November 145, 023 26 



1868. 



January $159, 776 00 

March 390, 030 13 

May 152,515 66 

July 117, 545 37 

September 431, 652 30 

November 284, 648 45 



February $148, 099 36 

April 200,747 11 

June 151, 798 72 

August 706, 783 82 

October 477, 441 25 

December 117, 917 62 



1869. 



January $220, 270 55 

March 233, 917 75 

May 120, 037 78 

Jiilv 183, 454 93 

September 208, 580 24 

November 180,208 88 



February $535, 204 91 

April 250, 331 53 

Juue 29, 710 86 

August 313,113 88 

October 735, 355 77 

December .... 243, 479 53 



1870. 



Jauuary $ )00, 180 84 

March. 658, 334 62 

May 501, 191 37 

July 496, 862 22 

September 421, 115 83 

November 550, 252 43 



February 1820, 576 28 

April ,/ 687,400 97 

Juue 632,472 96 

August - 586, 861 96 

October 534, 650 56 

December 476, 572 48 



1871. 



February $158, 189 47 

April 354, 018 21 

Juue 335,613 86 

August 34, 637 31 



January $474, 533 05 

March 383,249 11 

May 375, 716 79 

July... 111,289 85 

September 2, 701 05 j 

In October, late Disbursing Officer Ballocu was relieyed. 

The deficits outside of AVasliington (at New York, Baltimore, Cbarlos- 
tou, Louisyille, Saint Louis, Nashyille, Memphis, and Mobile) range 
from several hundred dollars to $43,000, and are for various months 
from March, 1867, to August, 1871. 

It is proper to state that an examination similar to that under which 
the foregoing was developed has failed to show deficits in the immediate 
accounts of General Howard and Maj. J. M. Brown, the other disburs- 
ing officer. 

December 21, 1 addressed a note to General O. O. Howard, TJuited States 
Army, the late Commissioner, requesting him to arrange with late Dis- 
bursing Officer Balloch, in order to an interview with me at the War 
Department at 1 o'clock p. m. of the 22d. The result of that interview 
will appear Jroni the following 

MEMOKAXDU.M. 

On the '22(1 December, by direction of the Secretary of ^Var, I was present at a con- 
versation between the Secretary, General O. O. Howard, and George \V. Balloch, late 
disbursing officer of the Frcedmen's Bureau. 

To an in(iuiry by the Secretary, whether he (Balloch) recalled the investigation by 
Inspector-General Schriver as to the $280,000-bond matter, Balloch replied in the 
aflirmative. 

To an inquiry, in continuation, aside from the matter of those bonds and certain 
funds covered b^' his (Balloch's) accounts for June, July, and August, 1871, which were 
not found on deposit with the United States Treasurer, did his accounts at any other 
time or times represent funds as deposited in the Treasury when they were not so de- 
posited, Balloch said he did not know. 

The Secretary of War then showed a written statement, in which are made to appear 
the sums reported on deposit by Balloch and the sums reported on deposit by the 
Treasurer of the United States, and their diHerences, for the months beginning March, 
18()7, till September, 1871, both inclusive, which had been first submitted to the Sec- 
retary on the 20th of December, and asked Balloch to examine it and explain the large 
discrepancies, saying that the items in black figures were those from Balloch's reports, 
and those in red from the Treasurei-'s reports, between which, the discrepancies 
being so great, the Secretary thought it right that Balloch should have an opportunity 
to explain them. Balloch answered that he could not, unless they were occasioned 



by his reporting as on deposit the valnesof Treasnry certificates which were in Hodge's 
(late paymaster United States Army) possession bnt not really paid. He said further 
that when directed to turn over the funds in his possession, he did so, having all that 
was required to make good the balance for which he was accountable. 

After the parties separated. General Howard re-appeared before the Secretary, and 
said he had just conversed with Balloch about the above-narrated transaction, and 
that he (Balloch) stated that the dift'erences in the reports of sums deposited must have 
been occasioned by the certificates in Hodge'shands not being paid. 

Throughout these conversations with the Secretary of War, General Howard said he 
knew nothing about the matter himself. 

ED. SCHRIYER, 

I ntipeci 07-- General. 

December 23, the late Commissiouer called at the War Department, 
aud delivered to me the following : 

Washington, D. C, Dceeinbrr *23, 187:5. 
Sir : Since my interview with you yesterday, I have examined my retained papers, 
and am contident that at the proper time, and before a proper tribunal, I can explain any 
discrepancy that may appear to exist in my Treasury balances while disbursing officer 
of the Freednien's Bureau. 
Very respectfully, 

G. W. BALLOCH. 
Hon. W. W. Bklknap, 

Secretary of Jf'ar. 

As the said communication, in my view, evidenced a disinclination to 
submit to me proper explanations, I addressed the following : 

War Department, Waslungton, D. C, Decemher 24, 1873. 
General : Eeferring to the letter of the 23d instant from George W. Balloch, late 
disbursing officer, delivered by you to me the same date, in which it is stated " that at 
the proper time, and before the proper tribunal, I [he] can explain any discrepancy 
that may appear to exist in my [his] Treasury balances," you are respectfully informed 
that the accounting officers of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the United States are 
the proper officials to be consulted in order to explanation. 

Viewing it, under the laws, particularly the act of March 29, 1867, (War Department 
General Orders 53 of 18(57,) to be your duty ta exert yourself to the utmost in regard to 
the most important subject now under consideration, I hereby direct you to place j'our- 
self in communication with the Treasurer and accouuting officei's, so that, through 
them and in connection with the retained accounts of late Disbursing Officer Balloch, 
explanations, if any, may be submitted to me at the earliest practicable date, not later 
than the 31st instant. 

Very respectfully, vonr obedient servant, 

W. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
General O. 0. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau Refugees, Freeilmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Houard University, Washinyton, D. C. 



December 26, the following was received 



W^ASiiiNGTON, D. C, December 25, 1873. 
Sir : I have the hon<u- to re([nest the tabular statement, or a copy of it, shown me 
last Monday at your office. This will enable me to obtain a statement of the facts 
from General Balloch, aud also, as you direct, put myself in communication with the 
Treasury officials. 

I do not remember that the tabular statement was signed. Was it from the United 
States Treasurer '? 

I shall make all possible haste to comply with your instructions. 
Very respectfuUv, vonr obedient servant, 

0.0. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General. United States Army. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 



To which 1 replied as follows : 

War Department, 

Washington, 1). C, December 26, 1873. 

General : Eeferring to your communication of [receivedl this date, requesting " the 
tabular statement, or a copy of it, shown to me [you] last Monday, to enable me [you] 
to obtain a statement of the facts from General I3alloch," I reply that, for the purpose 
indicated, it is not necessary that I should comply with your request, for the reason 
that, by calling at the offices of the Second and Third Auditors, you can gain access to 
the accounts of General Balloch,from v/hich were furuished to this Department the 
figures certiiied by Disbursing Officer Balloch, showing the amounts on deposit in the 
Treasury of the United States and other dejiositories. In a similar way, by calling at 
the office of the Treasurer of the United States, you can obtain the figures, as reported 
to this Department, showing the amounts actually on deposit to the credit of the dis- 
bursing officer. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of fVar. 
General O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commissioner Bureau of liefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, 

Howard University, Washington, D. C, 

Through letters dated December 26 I placed the subject before the 
Attorney-General and the Secretary of the Treasury, and inclosed to 
them, respectively, lists showing the discrepancies or amounts overstated 
by Disbursing Officer Balloch as on deposit. 

December 31 1 received the following : 

Washington, D. C, December 26, 1873. 
Sir: In accordance with your instructions, dated December 24, 1873, I visited the 
Second Auditor of the Treasury, and laid before him, as nearly as I could from memory, 
all matters touching the discrepancies which appeared in the tabular statement showu 
me by youi'self. He states that he has settled the accounts, and transmitted them to 
the Second Comptroller, where I must go with any statements or explanations. 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 

And also the following : 

Washington, D. C, December 27, 1873. 
Sir : I visited the United States Treasurer, and requested the statement of the 
amounts of deposit of General Geo. W. Balloch, disbursing officer, for five years, includ- 
ing and following 1867. The Treasurer verbally replies, and promises it in writing, 
that it will take his clerks at least two weeks to furnish me the data I require, so that 
it is impossible that my report can be ready, as required by your order in communica- 
tion of December 24, 1873. 

I also visited the Third Anditor, asking him for General Balloch's statements of de- 
posit. He thinks it took the officials sent from the War Department several weeks to 
obtain the same data. His clerks are now on half time during the holidays. He in- 
forms me that General Balloch's accounts had been found correct, and transmitted to 
the Second Comptroller. 

I also visited the Second Comptroller and laid the matter before him, who promises 
such aid as he can properly render in pronouncing upon the validity or invalidity of 
the explanations with reference to the discrepancies which you have had so carefully 
tabulated, and which I am endeavoring to obtain. 

Again to-day I visited the Second Auditor, who states that the information is not in 
his office. 

Very respectfully, vour obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United Slates Army. 
Hon. W. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of JFar. 



To which I made the followiug reply ; 

War Departaiext, 
IVasMngton, I). C, December 31, 1873. 
General: Refcrriniij to your letters of the 26tli and 27th iastants, reportino- your 
visits to the accountino; otticers of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the United 
States, in connection with the explanations required by my letter to you of the 24th 
instant, it hardly seems necessary for me to inform you that the accountini^ oHlcera 
have not notilied nie of the correctness or settlement of the accounts of George W. 
Balloch, late disbursing otiicer. 

As the retained accounts of Disbursing- Officer Balloch are presumed to he duplicates 
of those witli the accounting otiticers, their examination, which I trust is now in prog- 
ress by you, would expedite the duty devolved upon you. In this connection please 
see my reference to tha said retained accounts in my letter to you of December 24. 

There must be some misapprehension on the part of the Third Auditor as to his 
thinking that "it took the officials sent from the War Department several weeks to 
obtain ithe same data" bearing upon the " statements of deposit." No oflicials were 
sent by the War Department to prepare it ; but, on the contrary, it was compiled by 
the Auditor's officials, and furnished over the signature of the Auditor, as will be seen 
from his letter of October 7, 1873, transmitting thtj statement-sheets. Not more than 
ten days were required for the ))reparation. 

It is important that misappi'ehension should not be connected with tlie matter under 
consideration, and, therefore, it is proper that your requests upon the Treasury officers 
for information should be si)ecific, and in writing, so that they may secure like replies. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretarij of War. 
General O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

L(dc Commissioner Bureau licfugees, Freeihnen and Abandoned Lands. 

By letter dated December 30, the late Commissioner trausmitted 
to me a "general statement," dated December 2!), from late Disbursing 
Officer Balloch, in i)artial explanation of the discrepancies. Therein, 
the following admissions are embraced : 

1. That partial payments were made to contractors, and the amount 
of "checks given for these partial payments would be considered as in 
the Treasury until the tinal settlement was made." 

2. That prior to the "bounty-certificates," as received from the Second 
Auditor, being j)aid b}' the Pay Department of the Army, the amounts 
covered by them were, in making out the "account-current for each 
month," considered as-in the Treasury. 

In this connection he (Balloch) has stated that the Pay Department 
"could not, or did not, settle these certificates as fast as I sent them," 
* * * " and was always from two to four months behind ; " and that 
"the amount of said certificates received by me (him) from August 31, 
18G7, to August 31, 1SC8, was $3,439,455,74:." This amount divided by 
twelve, gives $280,454,64 as the average for each month, from which it 
will appear that if "the Pay Department was two mo!iths behind," it 
would have on hand 8572,909.28, and, if three months, $859,308,92. 
This same principle holds good in succeeding years. * * * # 
This will account for the large deficiencies that may appear in 1868 and 
1869. 

3. That there was on special deposit with the United States Treas- 
urer, from February, 1870, to February, 1871, United States securities 
costing $334,875, and from March, 1871, to October 11, 1871, similar 
securities costing $278,375, and that "these amounts should be added 
to the amounts as shown by the books of the Treasury during the 
]»eriod mentioned. 

Kelative to these admissions, I will at this time simply remark that 

they support the truthfulness of the disclosures made by the Treasury 

records, and are in conflict with the a(;counts rendered to the accounting 

officers. Under admission 2, the same amounts of money would be 

H. Ex. 10 -5 



6 

reported as iu the Treasury to the credit of two officers at the same time, 
and funds not yet to the credit or under the control of the hite disburs- 
ing oflicer (Balloch) were viewed by liim to his credit. The admission, 
however, conflicts with the records of the Pay Department and the 
disbursing officer's own account of "certificates on hand." 

From August 31, 18G7, to August 31, 1SG8, he actually received from 
the Pay Department $3,358,630.71, an average of $279,880.39 per 
month. 

Under all the admissions, money certified as iu the Treasury was not 
there. 

For explanation as to the bonds, (admission 3,) attention is invited to 
my letter to General Howard, dated January 2, 1874, and his reply 
thereto,(withinclosures,)dated Januarys, 1874. Copies herewith, marked 
A and P respectively. 

There is no law sanctioning the purchase of bonds. My views iu re- 
gard to such transactions are, as expressed by indorsement, October 9, 
1871, ou a letter froui General JHoward to the Secretary of the Treasury, 
as follows : 

In my opinion, there is not tLe slio;btest doubt as to the impropriety of any disbursing 
oflicer investing the money of the United States, and afterward using the interest for 
any purpose whatever, except snch use is sanctioned by express statute. 

The discrepancies or deficits are entirely too large to admit of explana- 
tion through "transfer drafts," the amount of which were viewed, it is 
alleged in the "general statement," as in the Treasury at Washington, 
"until I [Balloch] had received notice that" they had been received by 
the depository to which sent. 

Such further explanations as may be sent to me by the late Commis- 
sioner, under my order to him of December 24, will be for consideration 
at the ])roper time. 

The foregoing appears to involve violations of the following acts of 
Congress: Thirty-ninth Article of War, sees. 10 and 21, August 0, 1846, 
(9 Stat, at L., p. 63,) and sees. 1 and 2, June 14, 1800, (14 Stat, at L.. pp. 
04, 05.) 

In any further consideration, the records of the Treasury, of the Pay 
Department, and of the Freedmen's Branch Adjutant General's Office, 
may be consulted. 

This subject may be viewed as additional under headings and 8 of 
my communication of December 4, 1873. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 

The Hon. the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 



AA'AR Department, 

Washinfiton, D. C, January 2, 1874. 

General: Keferring to the communication of George W. Balloch 

late disbursing officer, dated the 29th ultiino, forwarded by you to me 

with your letter of the 30th ulttimo, and wherein he has stated "that 

from February, 1870, to February, 1871, there was on deposit with the 

States Treasurer United States securities costing $334,875, 



were also on special deposit with liim, ($50,000 of this last sum was 
iu my [bis] safe for a short time,") I desire information — 

1. "As to the specific character of the securities referred to, and the 
authority for converting the funds into the said securities. 

2. What was the object of so converting the funds ? 

3. To what object or for what purpose were the funds represented by 
the said securities applied or used. 

4. If the said securities were United States bonds, what amount of 
interest accrued between the dates of purchase and sale, and what dis- 
I)Osition was made of that interest ? 

5. What increase resulted from the use of the funds represented by 
the said securities, and what disposition was made of it? 

6. Why were not the transactions connected with the securities now 
under consideration referred to at or before the time Inspector-General 
Schriver investigated the $280,000 (cash value) bond matter, (.$200,000 
registered, -$50,000 coupon,) involving the accounts of Disbursing Officer 
Balloch for June, July, and August, 1871? 

In addition to what is indicated in the foregoing, please add all in- 
formation necessary to a clear understanding of the subject. 
A reply is requested by 9 o'clock a. m., Monday next, the 5th instant. 
Eespectfully, vour obedient servant, 

WM. W. BELKNAP, 

Secretary of War. 
General O. O. Howard, U. S. A., 

Late Commusioner Bureau Befugccs^ Frcedmen and Abandoned Lands, 
Washington^ I). C. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. VIXCENT, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



B. 

Washington, D. C, January 5, 1874. 
Sir : In reply to your letter dated January 2, received January 3, 
1874, desiring information suggested by a letter of General Geo. W. 
Balloch, late disbursing officer, dated the 29th ultimo, I have the honor 
to inclose herewith a copy of my letter to General Geo. W. Balloch, and 
his response thereto, dated January 5, 1874, which I forward as General 
Balloch's explanation of the subject-matter of inquiry. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier-General, United States Army. 
Hon. Wm. W. Belknap, 

Secretary of War. 
Official : 

THOMAS M. VINCENT, 
Assista7it Adjutant- General. 



B' 



Washington, D. C, January 3, 1874. 
General : I have the honor to inclose herewith a copy of a letter 
received this afternoon from the honorable Secretary- of War, asking 



for certain information concerning matters mentioned in yonr commnni- 
cation to me dated December 29, 1873, and wliicU I forwarded to him 
in a letter dated December 30, 1873. 

I have to reqnest that you will fnrnish me with this information by 8 
o'clock a. m. on Monday next, if possible. 

Very respectfully, yonr obedient servant, 

O. O. HOWARD, 
Brigadier- General, United States Army. 
General Geo. W. Balloch, 

Late Chief Disbursing Officer Bureau Refugees, Freedmen, dc. 

A true copy : 

J. A. SLADEN^, 
Brevet Captain United States Army, Aid-de-Camp. 



Washington, January 5, 1874. 

Dear Sir : I am in receii)t of yonr letter of this date, inclosing a 
copy of a letter of the honorable Secretary of War to you, dated Jan- 
uary 3, in which he makes several inquiries in relation to the United 
States securities to which I referred in my letter of December 29, 1873. 
In reply I have to state: 

1st. The securities on special deposit with the Treasurer of the United 
States from February, 1870, to February, 1871, [or thereabouts,] were 
what are known in the market as "currency sixes," a United States 
bond. The face- value of the same was $300,000, and the premium and 
accrued interest, at the time of purchase, amounted to $31,875. These 
securities were purchased upon yonr order, after you had consulted the 
Second Comptroller and other Treasury' oflticials in relation to the 
matter. 

2d. The object of this investment was to create a fund out of which 
could be reimbursed any double payments that had been made in pay- 
ing bounties to the wrong i^arties on false identification, and thus ob- 
viate the necessity of going to Congress or the Court of Claims for re- 
lief; and, also, to eke out the meager appropriations for the Freedmen's 
Burean, so that just claims against it could be paid. 

3d. The net amount of interest and premium that accrued on these 
secnrities while they were held by me was $19,440.57, which was taken 
up on the refngeesand freed men's fund, and accounted for under act of 
Jnne 15, 1860. 

The expenditures, in the aggregate, were as follows : 

Re-inibursenient for douhleiiayments of bounties.. $1,338 56 

School-houses and asylums 16, 652 25 

Salaries of agents and clerks 1, 350 00 

Stationery and printing 105 76 

19, 446 57 

4th. The second lot of securities mentioned as being on special de- 
posit from March to October, 1871, is the same as was investigated by 
General Schriver, and if I gave in my letter of December 29 the cost 
as $273,375, it was a clerical error. The amount should be $279,375. 
This transaction having been previously explained, no further explana- 
tion is deemed necessary. 



9 

The authority for the latter investment was the same as in the former, 
and the reasons for making it the same. These were the only transac- 
tions of this character. 

5th. The reasons why the former transaction was not referred to at the 
time General Schriver was investigating the latter was, that no questions 
were asked 'as to any other transaction ; besides, this transaction had 
been completed several months, and, as the latter transaction was so 
severely criticised, there was no good reason for incurring additional 
censure for a transaction that was finished. 
Very respectfully, 

G. W. BALLOOH. 

General O. O. Howard. 



1 certify that the foregoiug are copies of all the exhibits introduced 
and noted in the foregoing proceedings of the court of inquiry insti- 
tuted in Special Orders No. 35, dated War Department, Adjutant- 
General's Office, Washington, D. C, February 16, 1874, in the case ot 
Brig. Gen. Oliver O. Howard, U. S. A. 

ASA BIED GARDNER, 
Major and Judge-Advocate, U. 8. A., 

Judge- Advocate of the Court, 



COURT OF INQUIRY IN THE CASE OF BRIG. GEN. 0. 0. HOWARD. 



HE VIETV^ 



JUDGE-ADYOCATE-GENERAL, 



AND ORDKI! OF 



THE SECRETARY OF WAR 



ANNOUNCING 



THE PROCEEDINGS, REPORT OF FACTS, OPINION OF 

THE COURT, AND THE ACTION OF THE 

PRESIDENT IN THE CASE. 



WASHINGTON: 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1874. 



NOTE. 

The second figures, inclosed thus, [ ], refer to pages as printed in book form : the 
others refer to the paging of the original record. 



REVIEW OF JDDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL. 



War Department, 
Bureau of Military Justice, 

June 20, 1874. 
To the President : 

Sir : In obedience to your instructions, communicated to me in the 
letter of your Secretary under date of the 25tli ultimo, I have the honor 
to submit to you the following report upon the proceedings of the court 
of inquiry in the case of Brig. Gen. O. O. Howard, the record of which 
is herewith returned. 

This court was convened by your command, announced in Special 
Orders Xo. o5, '^Yar Department, Adjutant-General's Oftice, February 16, 
1874, in pursuance of the joint resolution of Congress, approved Febru- 
ary 13, 1874, directing such a count "to fully investigate all the charges 
against Brigadier-General Howard contained in the communications of 
the Secretary of War to the Speaker of the House of Representatives 
of date December 4, 1873, and the 5th of January, 1874, and to report 
their opinion as well upon moral as upon technical or legal resi)ousibility 
for such offenses, if any, as may be discovered."' 

The communications of the Secretary of War, here referred to, as 
printed in Executive Document Xo. 10, parts 1 and 2, of the Forty-third 
Congress, first session, are attached to the record of the court as Ex- 
hibit B. 

An inspection of this document will show that it does not exhibit any 
formulated charges against General Howard, but simply presents a 
statement of alleged facts which were regarded as showing that certain 
violations of law, certain abuses and irregular practices, had been com- 
mitted in the administration of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmen, and 
Abandoned Lands, under the charge of that officer. Tliis statement is 
contained partly in the letters of the Secretary and partly in other official 
papers accompanying them, the contents of all which the court deter- 
mined at the outset of the investigation to be properl}- embraced in the- 
inquiry. 

The charges thus considered relate almost entirely to the manage- 
ment of the disbursing branch of the Bureau, the only exception beine; 
in the allegation of imperfection and confusion in the records of tii« 
Bureau, including those of its other divisions. As preliminary to a 
review of the findings of the court and the^vidence under these charges,, 
a general statement will be here presented of the legislation under which 
the Bureau was established, and the system by which its finances and 
disbursements were managed. 

The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands was cre- 
ated by the act of March 3, 1865, chap. 90, (13 Stats., 507,) and contin- 
ued in operation by acts of July 16, 1866, chap. 200, (14 Stats., 173,) 
July 6, 1868, chap. 135, (15 Stats., 83,) — which together conferred upon 



it various trusts in conuection with the protection, maintenance, aud 
education of the freedmeu ; while a joiut resolution of Congress of 
March 29, 1867, (15 Stats., 2G,) provided for the collection and payment 
of bounty and other money allowances to colored soldiers, sailors, and 
marines, OT their heirs, through the agency of that Bureau. All these 
trusts, except in relation to education and collection and payment, were 
discontinued January 1, 18G9, in pursuance of the act of July 25, 18G8, 
chap. 245, (15 Stats., 193.) But from the passage of the joint resolution 
of March 29, 1857, the most laborious busniess of the Bureau, and almost 
its entire work, after the 1st of January, 18G9, until June 30, 1872, when 
its duty of disbursement was transferred to the War Department, con- 
sisted in making the disbursements provided for by the joint resolution 
of March 29, 18G7. 

The funds which were received by the Bureau were the regular appro- 
priations " for the support of the Bureau," which, although made for 
various purposes named in the annual appropriation acts, yet for con- 
venience, by order of the Secretary of the Treasury, were accounted 
for under that single designation ; the refugees and freedmen's 
fund, raised from various sources by the Bureau ; school-fund under 
section 12 of the act of July 16, 1866, from sale of school buildings ; 
South Carolina school-fund, under section 8, act of 1866, from sale of 
lands in South Carolina, and some other transient appropriations. The 
accounts for expenditure of these funds were sent to the Third Auditor; 
the accounts for pay and bounty disbursements to the Second Auditor, 
who also has been recently directed -by the Secretary of the Treas- 
ury to adjust the accounts for what is called the irregular-bounty fund, 
raised under an order of General Butler, in command of the Department 
of Virginia and North Carolina, in 1864, directing a retention of a por- 
tion of State bounty of negro recruits for the benefit of their families. 
The management and disbursement of and the accounting for all these 
funds were in immediate charge of a chief disbursing officer of the Bureau, 
whose duty, from the establishment of the Bureau in 1865 until October 
11, 1871, was performed by Bvt. Brig. Gen. G. W. Balloch, U. S. V. ; from 
that date until February 5, 1872, by General Howard personally, in ad- 
dition to his general duties as Commissioner; and from the latter date 
until June 30, 1872, by Maj. J. M. Brown, U. S. V. 

The office of chief disbursing officer was not one created by law, but 
seems to have been instituted by General Howard himself, who also 
selected the first incumbent, and retained him when mustered out of 
the military service, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon the 
Commissioiier by sec. 4, chap. 135, ot the act of July 6, 1868. (See Ex- 
hibit X.) 

He was, however, recognized by the War and Treasury Departments 
to the extent that requisitions and warrants were drawn in his name 
upon the appropriations for the support of the Bureau, and his accounts 
for the expenditure of the money were received aud adjusted in the office 
of the Third Auditor of the Treasury. 

With regard to the collection and payment of bounty, pay, &c., how- 
ever, an important distinction was created by the joiut resolution of 
March 29, 1867, providing that all checks and Treasury certificates for 
money due to colored soldiers, sailors, aud marines, or their legal rep- 
resentatives, then residing, or who had resided, in any slave State of 
1860, and whose claim had been prosecuted by attorney, "shall be made 
payable to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, who shall pay 
the agent or attorney his lawful fees and expenses, and shall hold the 
balance subject to the order of the claimant, on satisfactory identiflca- 



tion." * * * Tlie first section further provides that it shall 
be the duty of the Commissiouer, and the officers and agents of the Bu- 
reau acting under him, to facilitate as far as possible the discovery, 
identification, and payment of the claimants. 

Sec. 2. That the Commissioner of the Freedmea's Bareau shall be held responsible 
for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of the funds hereby intrusted to 
m. * * 

Section 3 directs that all moneys held or disbursed under the pro 
•visions of this resolution shall be held and disbursed under the same 
rules and regulations governing other disbursing officers of the Army, 

This language is too plain to stand in need of support by official in- 
terpretation ; but it has been recently passed upon by the Attorney- 
General, in an o[)inion communicated to the Secretary of War under date 
of July 3, 1873, from which the following is an extract: 

But the joint resolution of 1867 is very explicit ; all money paid under that act is paid 
directly to the Commissioner, and it is enacted that he shall be responsible, &c. Noth- 
ing is said about any of the assistant commissioners, or about any disbursing officer; 
and although it was probably necessary, and undoubtedly was lawful for the Commis- 
sioner to appoint and employ disbursing officers besides himself, nevertheless he is re- 
sponsible civilly, under this act, for their acts the same as if done by himself, and even 
if he took bonds from them directly to the Gov^ernment, this cannot relieve him of such 
liability. 

General Balloch testifies that during his entire term as disbursing 
officer he rendered accounts to the Treasury for the disbursement of 
the United States bounty-fund in his own name; but their adjustment 
being delayed, it appears by the testimony of the Second Comi)troller that 
as soon as his attention was called to the question, who should render 
these accounts, he decided that they should be rendered as coming from 
the Commissioner. 

As showing an early recognition by General Howard of his individual 
responsibility in this matter, tliere is in evidence, as Exhibit S, a letter 
signed by him and addressed, under date of December 2, 1807, to the 
Second Comptroller, by whom it was approved, authorizing General 
Balloch, on account of the great number of signatures necessary, to 
sign, for and in the name of the Commissioner, Treasury-certificates and 
checks issued for bounty-money, pay, &c., under the resolution of March 
29, 1867. Under this authority General Balloch habitually receipted for 
the bounty of claimants in the following form of signature : 

Geo. W. Balloch, Bvt. Brig. Gen., for Bvt. Maj. Gen. 0. O. Howard, Commissioner. 

The objects of the legislation of March 29, 1867, and the manner in 
which its provisions were executed, are set forth in the statement of 
facts rendered by the court, as follows : 

It appears that in the early part of 1867, the accounting officers of the Treasury De- 
partment became uneasy at the numerous frauds being perpetrated on colored claim- 
ants for bounties, under the then existing acts of Congress, and called General How- 
ard into consultation concerning the payment of these bounties through the agency of 
the Freedmen's Bureau. 

After advising with General Howard, these officers of the Treasury Department drew 
up a bill to effect this object, and submitted it to Congress, and upon their recommend- 
ation the joint resolution of March 29, 1867, somewhat differing from the bill suggested 
by them, was passed by Congress. This law devolved upon the Commissioner of the 
Bureau of Eefugees, Freedmeu, and Abandoned Lands the payment of bounties to colored 
soldiers, sailors, and marines. It in terms made General Howard, as Commissiouer, re- 
sponsible for the " safe-keeping and disbursements " of funds appropriated for this 
purpose, but I'l'o^'ided in the second section that he should be assisted in these pay- 
ments by the officers and agents of his Bureau. He accordingly set to work to pay 
claimants, through the officers and agents of the Bureau, in accordance with this pro- 
vision, in the following manner: 

General George W. Balloch, the chief disbursing officer of the Bureau, was the prin. 



6 

cipal agent for these payments, and was so recognized and treated, both by the War 
and Treasury Departments. A Treasnry certificate for the amount due each legal 
claimant was made out in the name of such claimant and sent by the Second Auditor 
of the Treasury to General Howard, who placed these certificates in the hands of Gen- 
eral Balloch, who drew the money upon them from the paymaster. Vouchers duly 
prepared for the signature of the claimants were then sent to the agents of the Bu- 
reau in different parts of the country with a list of the claimants for whom the vouch- 
ers were prepared. The agents hunted up the claimants and identified them through 
their descriptive lists, by personal examination, and in any other sufficient manner; 
procured their signatures to the vouchers for the amount due each, and returned the 
vouchers to General Balloch, who, upon their receipt, transmitted lists of those from, 
whom signed vouchers had been received, with a check for the gross amount, to the 
agent by whom the signed vouchers had been sent back. It then became the duty of 
the agents again to look up the claimants, and put into the hands of each, in currency, 
the amount due him. As soon as his check left his hands, General Balloch filed in the 
Treasury, to his credit, the vouchers covered by it. This was the general rule, though 
in isolated cases, remote from the station of any agent, the money, in rare instances, 
was sent to some officer of the Army, or some one known to General Balloch, to be 
handed to the claimant. In some cases the money was paid in this manner through 
revenue officers, cashiers of freedmen banks, or through postmasters, but only, as ap- 
pears, when there was no agent in the vicinity. 

In every case, except the isolated cases above mentioned, involving small payments 
to one or two persons, and where Regular Army officers were employed, the agents 
were bonded officers, their bonds covering any liabilities they would have power to 
incur. 

By this mode of conducting business, it resulted that vouchers were filed in the 
Treasury, and credit taken therefor, before the money actually reached the claimant, 
and in some cases, not numerous when compared with the great number of claimants 
paid, it liappened that a claimant could not be found, and his money was returned to 
General Balloch, while, at the same time, his receipt for the money was already in the 
Treasury and credited to General Balloch. Some cases of this kind were unavoidable. 
In this manner payments of bounties to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines were 
made from 1867 to 1872, and it is the concurrent testimony of the Treasury officials that 
frauds and complaints of non-payments very greatly decreased, and that the system 
was far better and more efficient than any pursued before, and still pursued in the same 
kind of payments to white soldiers. In proportion to numbers, notwithstanding the 
much greater difficulty of identification of colored claimants, the losses which fell upon 
claimants, by frauds or otherwise, in the payments to colored soldiers by the Bureau, 
and to white soldiers through the Pay Department, were in favor of the former. 

Before commenting upon the foregoing statement of facts, it must be 
noted, by way of correction, that the evidence shows that the cashiers 
of the freedmeu's branch savings-banks were frequently em])loyed as 
agents, and that they did not give bonds for the disbursement of public 
money, (tenth day's proceedings, page 59, [74,J General Balloch's testi- 
mony; also page 96, [121,] 14th day,) as follows: 

Question. Those checks that you have referred to in your testimony to-day, as being 
on the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company — did you keep a public account with 
that company? 

Answer. No, sir. Whenever I had cases to pay through their cashiers, who were our 
agents at places where I had no United States funds, I used to draw my check on the 
Treasury of the United States here for the amounts I wanted, take it to the actuary of 
the Freedman's Savings Bank, and, in exchange for it, he would give me checks on the 
branch of the company where the claim was to be jiaid, to facilitate the payment. I 
did not have public funds in Mobile all the time; I did part of the time, when I was 
disbursing officer. The actuary drew the checks. 

Question. When you transferred in payment checks on the branch savings-banks 
of the FrtHidman's Savings and Trust Company, through the country, in the payment 
of bounties, do I understand that, previously thei'eto, they had received on deposit 
public funds to meet those from the United States Treasurer here, or your own checks? 

Answer. I drew from the Treasury on my own check, as before stated, the amount 
of mcmey I wanted to make up the check or checks I wished to send to the agent. I 
took that check to the actuary of the Freedman's Savings and Trust Company in 
Washington, and for that check he gave me such checks as I wanted on a branch, 
wherever I wished to send. 

The question here arising is one of the most important with which 
this inquiry had to deal. The object of the legislation of March 29, 
1807, recommended by General Howard in conjunction with other offi- 



cials, was greater certainty that colored claimants slioukl receive their 
dues from the Government. In carrying into eifect the law, and execnt- 
ing the trnst confided to him, it is obvious tliat it was his primary dnty 
to perfect a good and efficient system, by which the great object of the 
law could be best attained and the evidence of that attainment be dnly 
recorded. 

General Balloch deposes that the Commissioner approved the method 
adopted, while it is not denied that he was fully aware of its practical 
operation, and habitually followed it when he came to act personally as 
disbursing officer. 

What was that system ? For greater simplicity, and to avoid a mul- 
tiplication of accounts, the claimants receipted directly to the disbursing 
officer in Washington for money paid to them in various parts ot the 
country. If this receipt had been made to show the date and place and 
actual fa(!t of i^ayment, it would have been strictly in compliance with 
paragraph 997, Revised Army Regulations, "governing other disburs- 
ing officers of the Army :" 

All officers are forbid to give or take auy receipt in blauk for public money or 
property, but in all cases the voucher shall be made out in full, and the true date, 
l)]ace, aud exact amouut of money, in words, shall be written out in the receiiDt before 
it is signed. 

Not only, however, did the receipts habitually taken by the Freed- 
men's Bureau, when signed, fail to show the true date and place of 
•payment, but they failed to truly show that auy payments had been 
made.^ 

As these receipts were put into the Auditor's Office as the only proof 
of the payment of the claimant, and the acquittance of the Freedmen's 
Bureau of its trust, it follows that the Treasury Department to-day 
contains no authentic or reliable evidence that some eight millions of 
public bounty and pay has reached its rightful claimants to the number 
of some 45,000, or that the purpose of the legislation of March 29, 18t>7, 
has been carried into effect. 

Nor is this evidence supplied with any certainty or uniformity by the 
records of the Freedmen's Bureau, which, until about July, 187 L, did 
not receive from its numerous agents throughout the country any 
stated returns of claims remaining on hand unpaid, so that prior to 
that time, in order to ascertain the fortunes of a claim after the money 
to pay it had left the office in Washington, it was, in general, necessary 
to refer to the office to which it was sent. (See evidence of Book- 
keeper Terry, 35th day, page 374 [471].) And although General Balloch 
testities that from about a year before he was relieved General Howard 
required memorandum receipts to be sent direct to the Commissioner 
upon i)ayment of claimants, yet there is no evidence that these were 
tiled or registered. 

The numerous chances against the prompt and full payment of claims, 
in the temptation offered to agents and subagents, whose action was 
subjected to such inconsiderable supervisiou and guarded by scarcely 
any checks, are quite apparent. Equally so are the probabilities that 
money would remain a long tiine in the hands of honest agents, or in 
the branches of the Freedman's Savings Bank, upon which the chief dis- 
bursing officer was allowed by the bank in Washington to draw in ex- 
change for his check upon the Treasury. What account was taken of 
this money, or the interest, if any, of so much of it as was left in the 
bank by the chief disbursing officer, is not disclosed in evidence. That 



it was not properly accounted for is admitted by General Ballocb in bis 
testimony, (page 77 [97],) as follows: 

Question. Wheu bouiity-uioueys were retiunefl to yon wLicli liacl not been called 
for by claimants, what uotitication did you or the Commissioner give the Treasury De- 
partment in reference to the cancellation of the vouchers which had been filed of 
such payment ? 

Answer. I did not give them any. 

In this imperfect and disordered condition of accounts and records, it 
is manifest that no favorable presumption justly arises from the small 
proportion of tbe cases in which it has been casually discovered, since 
tbe transfer of the Bureau to anotlier direction, that the money was re- 
turned to the cliief disbursing officer, in comparison with the whole 
number alleged to have been settled. 

An equally frail reliance is tbe comparing of the number of complaints 
received in any particular quarter of non-payments under one system 
with tbe numbers preferred under others. 

TLe evidence to this point was given by the Socond Auditor and his 
clerks. The most explicit and definite testimony is that of Mr. Harmon, 
cbief of tbe division of the Second Auditor's Office for the investigation 
of frauds, as follows : 

Question. From ISGG to the present moment you have a correct record ? 

Answer. From 1^66 or lt;67 to the present time there has been a system and a record 
kept under my supervision. 

Question. Can you tell, approximately, how many cases of white claimants there 
were altogether, aud how many colored claimants, in which frauds or non-payments 
were alleged, formal and informal? 

Answer. Coming to the knowledge of the Office or my own knowledge ? • 

Question. Coming to your knowledge in any way ; coming to the Second Auditor's 
Ofiice. 

Answer. Between 20,000 and 30,000 cases of white soldiers aud between 2,000 and 
:^,000 in cases of colored soldiers; that is, approximately. 

Question. How many whites were entitled to be claimants for bounty and arrears? 

Answer. It would be impossible for me to teli, or any one, without examining be- 
tween (WO, 000 and 700,000 settlements in our Office and a large number iu the Paymas- 
ter-General's Oftice. (Page 110 [139].) 

X * * » « « » 

Qnestion. To what fact, if any, do you ascribe the greater number of complaints from 
white soldiers to your division than from blacks of wrongs or frauds in the payment 
of bounty and the arrears of pay ? 

Answer. From the fact that there are a larger number of settlements in cases of 
white soldiers, both by the Second Auditor's Oftice and the Paymaster-General's Office. 

QuesriuU. Do you know what proportion the settlements have been with reference 
to colored bounties, since July 30, 1872, the <Iate of the discontinuance of the Freed- 
men's Bureau, as compared with the time the Bureau was in existence ? 

Answer. I do not. 

Question. Can you state deQnitely, or with any degree of defiuiteness, how many 
white claims have copie to your division for investigation since March, 1867 °l 

Answer. I should think, approximately, iu the neighborhood of two thousand cases, 
both formal aud informal. (Page 111 [140].) 

In making this comparison, however, there should be kept in view 
the difference between white, and colored soldiers recruited in slave 
States, in intelligence and education, and other respects. As a rule, 
tlie whites could read and write, were fully informed as to their rights 
and ready to demand them, knowing well where to resort for redress. 
The freedmen, on tbe contrary, were generally illiterate, simi)le-minded, 
aud credulous, their whole dependence upon the Bureau, the branch of 
the General Government best known to them, to the agents of which 
their complaints would most naturally How. If the agent was so dis- 
posed, be might rather quiet and put oft" a claimant with fair promises 
than take tbe trouble to forward bis petition to higher authority. 

The claims of the white soldiers were paid as well as adjusted by the 



Paymaster-General and Second Auditor; while, although the claims of 
the freedmeu were settled in the Second Auditor's Office, they dealt 
entirely with the Freedmen's Bureau, and looiied for payment entirely 
to that institution. But that their complaints which reached the Audi- 
tor were not all, or probably more than a small proportion, of those 
actually made by colored soldiers, their friends or attorneys, is indicated 
in the testimony of ]Major Vincent, assistant adjutant-general, who, 
describing the imperfect manner in which some of the records of the 
Bureau were kept, says, (page 325 [411] :) 

The Bureau records, such as were transferred : One difficulty encouutered was in 
conuectiou with the bounty register, which was found to be unreliable after we had 
commenced payments to claimants, and which necessitated the stoppage of work until 
it was re-examined and compared with the records of the Second Auditors Office. 
Other difficulties resulted from complaints being made, and upon reference to the 
records, as transferred, we would have difficulty in tracing the case through them. 
This resulted in part from the records of the disbursing officer, letters received prior 
to January 1, 1871, not being entered in books of letters received. Of those letters 
there were some 11,000 or 12,000 relating to matters of payment, making complaint 
that the bounty-moneys had not been received, and so on. They were simply, upon 
the receipt in the Bureau, stamped with the date of receipt, not taken up in any way, 
so that if any one of the writers should subsequently refer to his previous communica- 
tion, there was no way of tracing it. Those coumiunications, about 12,000, will occupy, 
when arranged, some fortj-five or forty-six volumes, made of the ordinary adhesive iile, 
estimating 250 to a volume. Up to the present date there have been about sixteen 
volumes which have been arranged and indexed. 

It is to be observed that, after these eleven or twelve thousand let- 
ters had been received, the Bureau continued for eighteen months in 
the continued payment of bounties, and that on March 19, 1S7L', more 
than three months before the discontinuance of the Bureau, a cinatuir 
was issued by order of the Commissioner, in \\hich it was announced 
that, on "account of want of iunds, it is necessary to suspend in great 
measure the operations of the Bureau. The collection of claims cannot 
be continued.'- * * * # * ♦ * 

"Each case (of claims settled) will receive attention in its turn. 
Letters of inquiry iHIl not hasten action, and cannot he ansu-ered.-^ 

"While the accounts and records of the Bureau have not been opened 
and kept with any such exactness and regularity as to show reliably to 
what extent its trust has been executed, some of the natural results of 
the system of i>ayments and accounts adopted are fully exemplified in 
certain facts proved in the investigation. Upon the tran.sfer of the 
Bureau afl'airs to the War Department, Maj. J. M. Brown turned over 
a list of money remaining uncalled for in the hands of agents to the 
amount of 837,919.04, and money to the amount of $31,078.03. The 
difference, $6,841.01, was accounted for as in the hands of O. C. French, 
ex-agent Freedmen's Bureau, and now a member of the Mississippi legis- 
lature, whose case was treated by the court under the "third Iieading" 
of its report of facts, and who became a defaulter in the summer of 
1871; and having been so reported to the Secretary of War in the 
spring of 1872, by Gen. E. E. Whittlesey, then in temporary charge of 
the Bureau, his sureties have been sued and some §5,000 recovered 
from them. 

But it appears in evidence that the whole amount of this $37,919.04 
was long since accounted for to the Treasury upon vouchers showing it 
to liave been paid to and receii^ted for by claimants, for whom it was 
transferred by the Treasury to the Commissioner of the Freedmen's 
Bureau. 

In reply to the inquiry of Captain McMillan, disbursing officer in the 
Adjutant-General's Office, Acting Auditor Herring directed, under date 



10 

of September 4, 1872, that of the above-mentioned sum, $31,078.03, there 
shouUI be taken np to the credit of General Howijird $21,210.48; to 
General BaHoch, $9,851.02, * * the vouchers upon wliich 
credit was chiimed having been disallowed. (Exhibit B, page 30.) 

With reference to the amount of French's default, General Balloch 
testifies, (page 77 [98] :) 

Question. What was this sum for, in which he was reported as being a defaulter? 

Answer. For bounty-claims which had been sent him to pay. 

Question. Where were the voucliei's for these claims? 

Answer. I put them in the Treasury to my credit, the same as I did in all other cases. 

In the case of Mandeville, presented by the court under the second 
heading of its report, and who upon his sudden death and that of his 
cleric, the one from cholera and the other from yellow fever, in Novem- 
ber, 1867, and in whose safe was found $9,000 to meet claims amounting 
to $17,000, reported by his successor to be unpaid, although his books 
showed payment, the court report : 

There seems to be no evidence whatever that these persons were not paid, and it 
appears that only ten or twelve ever stated that they had not been, (Beeman, p. 150.) 
Nevertheless the $9,000 found in Maudeville's safe were used in making payments, but, 
so far as can be ascertained, not to those who, according to Mr. Sauvin6t, had not been 
paid. 

The inability to discover definitely whether these parties having claims 
to the amount of $17,000 were paid, or to whom the sum of $9,000 found 
in the safe of a deceased agent was payable and afterward actually 
paid, while vouchers for the receipt by claimants of the whole of this 
$17,000, together with some $75,000, sent to the same agent, were 
in the Treasury, is a most striking iilnstration of the method of pay- 
ment and accounts used in the Bureau. Wiiether the fact that only an 
inconsiderable number of these claimants (" perhai)S a dozen, perhaps 
twenty," Beeman, page 119 [150|) complained to Mr. Beeman, (who 
entered on the duty of paying bounties in New Orleans in March, 1808, 
succeeding Sauvinet, cashier Freedman's Bank,) indicates that all others 
were paid, or is merely an example of what has been remarked of the 
fallibility of any conclusion drawn from the comparisons of tlie number 
of complaints, cannot be pronounced with certainty. 

It ai)pears, however, that General Howard was satisfied by the report 
of his subordinates that the $9,000 found in Maudeville's safe was all 
that remained of the $17,000 unpaiii to claimants, though entered in 
that agent's books as paid, and which was accounted for by receipted 
vouchers from claimants in the Auditor's Office, as, under date of Feb- 
ruary 18, 1870, he wrote to Senator Kellogg as follows, (Exhibit L^ :) 

General Mower at once appointed a commission to take charge of his effects. In his 
safe was found the sum of $9,851.0.5, which was supposed to be Government funds. 

This commission reported that it was evident that the parties for whom Mr. Mande- 
ville had received money had not all been paid. All his books and papers were put 
into the hands of his successor, Mr. C. S. Sanvinct, who was ordered to thoroughly 
investigate the whole matter and report. After a mouth's labor, he reported a list of 
soldiers who had not been paid by Mr. Maudeville the sum due them, amounting to 
$18,074.34. He was ordered to use the amount found in Maudeville's safe as far as it 
would go. This has been done by him and his sncce-sor, Colonel Baeman, and at this 
time there is in his liands $123.97 of this amount 

Suit has been commenced in the courts of Louisiana against the sureties of Mr. Maude- 
ville, and they resist the claim, and the matter is still in litigation. 

The testimony of General Balloch is to similar effect, (pages 03 and 64 
[79 and 80];) and it appears by the testimony of General Whittlesey 
(page 168 [212]) that General Sewall, inspector-general of the Bureau, 
was sent by the Commissioner from Washington to investigate the matter. 

It is thus shown, by the best testimony now.attaiuable, that to pay 



11 

claimants about the sum of $17,000, for which vouchers had been filed 
in the Treasury, (Balloch, G4 [80],) about nine thousand dollars was 
used, and that about twenty comphiints are only known to have been 
received from claimants: twelve or twenty by Beeman, (page 119 [150] ;) 
two or three by Balloch, (page 97 [123].) 

When it is considered that vouchers for these several amounts — the 
money transferred by Major Brown — for the amount of the Frenc^h de- 
falcation, and for that of what has been treated by the officers of the 
Bureau as the Mandeville defalcation, have been accepted as prima facie 
true in the settlement of the accounts of the Commissioner, it will be 
jjerceived how inconclusive, and of what little significance to the pur- 
poses of this investigation, is the fact stated by the court, that General 
Howard's accounts have been closed by the accounting otficers of the 
Treasury, whose decision in such matters is the highest authority, &c. 
(Opinion of the court, page 477 [601].) 

In justification of the mode of payments and accounts in use in the 
Bureau, it is contended by the defense that this mode did not substan- 
tially difler from that in vogue among other disbursing officers of the 
Army, by whom receipts are habitually taken before payments are 
actuallj' made. The difference, however, is thj;^: vouchers payable 
by check are sometimes received by the Pay Department with the 
recei[)t attached or incorporated with the account, but until they are 
paid they are never authorized to be held or used by the Pay Depart- 
ment as vouchers in the -Treasury. It is true that when a paymaster 
hands a check to a claimant, or, upon his ap])lication, commits it, pay- 
able to his order, to the mail, addressed to his post-office address or 
that of his lawful attorney, it is considered that the payment is made, 
because a, specific sum of money is thus set apart in the Treasury 
or authorized depository to be paid only to the order of the claimant, 
who, if the check be lost, is entitled under proper conditions to a dupli- 
cate; while the interest of the United States is also protected in case 
the check is never drawn, owing to any cause, such as the death of 
the payee without legal representatives, by law* and regulations under 
which, after a n-asonable time, the amount is secured to the Government. 

The I'ights of colored payees were further secured before the resolution 
of March, 1867, providing that their payment should be made in currency 
by the Freedmeu's Bureau, by the 3d section of the resolution of elnly 
26, 1806, (14 Stats, at Large, 368.) providing that no claimant should be 
paid on a ehecik, order, or draft, urtil he had established, by the oaths 
of two credible witnesses, tliat he was the identical person named 
therein. 

In the Bureau the vouchers, as soon as signed, were held available to 
discharge the liability to the Treasury of the C uumissioner, while the 
money to pay them was sent to agents, and sometimes by them confided 
to sub agents, and the chance of its receipt thus made to depend upon 
the honesty, judgment, discretion, and diligence of almost unaccounta- 
ble deputies. 

It is to be noted that Major J. M. Brown, who performed the duty of 
chief disbursijig oflicer from February 5, 1872, until the close of the 
Bureau, testifies that he always required the signing of vouchers to 
accompany the receipt of the money, and took other precautions, which, 
as the results would show, have been quite successful in preventing 
fraud and mistake, inasmuch as he had but one complaint, which he 
satisfied upon explanation. 

The only reason that is apparent for the mode of doing business pur- 
sued by General Balloch and General Howard, w^as the promotion of 

* See act of May 2, 1866, chapter 70. 



12 

greater convenience and less labor to the disbursing office in Washing- 
ton. 

It is quite evident that all the evils growing out of the system might 
have been avoided by a proper method of sending money with vouchers 
and charging tbem to the agent, and requiriug him to return them with 
proper proof of identification and payment of claiu^ant. 

The luethod adopted by the Adjutant-General's Office, which from 
June 30, 1872, to March 1,1874, has paid 4,541cases, covering 8701,306.37, 
(iMajor Vincent's testimony, page 329 [415],) is thus explained by Mr. 
Moody, chief clerk of the BYeedmen's branch of the Adjutant-General's 
Office, (pages 313, 314 [395, 396J :) 

The very day claimant receives his mouey is the day he signs the receipt. The 
•witnesses to the signature are the witnesses to the payment of the money. All our dis- 
bursing officers receive this money in bulk, and we furnish them with the lists of the 
claims that they are to pay. These disbursing officers are charged upon the books of 
our office with the money, and receipt to Major McMillan for it in bulk, and render 
their accounts direct to the Treasury, or through our office to the Treasury Depart- 
ment. Thej' are all accountable upon the records of the Treasury Department for the 
mouej' Major McMillan transfers to them. Occasionally we are obliged to use other 
means to make jjayraents. In cavses where the claimants reside at points distant from 
any of our paying points, we have, under arrangement with the Postmaster-General, 
paid them their payments by means of monej^-orders. And again we have used, tem- 
porarily, officers of the Army that were in places convenient to the residence of the , 
parties, and paid through them under special instructions in each case; but in every 
instance the voucher that we receive, or our disbursing officers receive, indicates the 
fact that the payment of the mouey was made at the time the voucher was signed. 

* # JT # • # * 

The ideutiiication consists in the affidavit of two or more parties, who are certified 
to by a civil magistrate to be credible persons, that the parties presenting themselves 
for payment are the identical persons they represent themselves to be. We then have, 
in addition, in the case of every soldier, what we call a confidential list. It is a list 
containing the full military history of that soldier from the time he went into the serv- 
ice until the time he left it. There are certain matters connected with the military 
history of almost every soldier that he alone is supposed to know. In a great many 
cases soldiers have been wounded, lost a finger, lost an eye, or there has been some 
peculiar mark about them at the time of their enlistment ; all these things are noted on 
the confidential lists, and the parties who appear before us are subjected to a close exam- 
ination. The party will be questioned as to his military history, as to his knowledge 
of his officers, as to the other soldiers who were in his company and regiment, and 
then he is re-examined as to his description, his height, and with particular reference 
to any marks or scars tli.at he had on him at the time of his enli^tment, or that he 
received while in the service. I will say that, in a great many instances we have been 
able to identify the negro positively by the description, the loss of a finger, and I have 
often come down so close as to notice that their ears were pierced, that fact having 
been entered on the enlistment list. 

The result of this care is evinced in the fact that only three erroneous 
payments are reported, in one of which a person falsely representing a 
claimant has been convicted, while in another a similar oflt'euder is 
awaiting trial. 

In the case of 179 claimants who assert that they have not received 
their bounty, pay, &c., ^$33,S88.39,) although their vouchers are on file 
in the Treasury, the court reports tliat it " did not consider it necessary 
to summon before it the 174 claimants referred to, to ascertain whether 
or not they had actually received the amounts claimed to be due them, 
since, even if their allegations could be fully established,«it would not 
necessarily follow that fraud or wrong-doing had been committed. If it 
could be shown that the amounts thus due had actually been sent to 
make these payments, and thus passed from the possession of General 
Howard and his chief disbursing officer, and such portion, if any, as had 
been returned because the claimants could not be found, had been 
accounted for properly, the responsibility of General Howard or his 
chief disbursing officer would be discharged." # * * 



13 

" There seem to be only seven of these 174 claimauts who were paid 
by General Howard himself. He has established, in all these cases, 
that the money was sent for their payment in the usnal manner hereto- 
fore explained, and such as has been received back because of the im- 
practicability of finding claimants has been duly accounted for." (For 
further report of the court under this head reference is invited to tlie 
printed opinion.) 

This conclusion is substantially the same as that announced by an in- 
terlocutory decision of the court in refusing to admit testimony from 
the record bearing on these cases, as exhibited in the following extract 
from the proceedings, 29th day, pending the examination of Mr. Moody . 

The Judge-Advocate. These one hundred and seventy-four are cases in which vouchers 
have already been filed in the Treasury and credit claimed therefor, and I am endeav- 
oring to show by the records of the Bureau themselves, as turued over by the late 
Commissioner, General Howard, that many of these cases have not been paid, and 
that since the Bureau has hem discontinued and these records turned ov^er these col- 
ored claimants have applied to tlie War Department to get their money, the vouchers 
having been filed therefor in the Treasury. 

By the Coukt. Has not that already been admitted by the accused ; that there were 
colored claimauts who did not get their money, and have since applied for it ? 
The Judge-Advocate. I am going into particular instances. 

A Member of the Court said : If we are here to state an account and say just how 
many of tliese colored claimauts are telling tlie truth and how many are telling lies, 
we should have to go into all that; but if it is only on the general question, one is as 
bad as fifty; one is not as bad as five thousand, because that number out of forty-four 
thousand would show gross neglect. 

By a Memhek oe the Court, (to the judge-advocate.) Do you expect to show in 
these ten cawes that fraud has been committed ? 

The Judge-Advocate. I intend to show that these ten cases have not been paid. 
The gentleman may recollect that when Mandeville died there was found in his safe 
$9,000 odd. Mr. Sauvin^t, who went down there, found the money there, and reported 
to the Commissioner that there was about $17,000 due claimants, and he paid this 
$9,000 out as far as it would go. Here are cases that came into the Bureau which 
show that the men did not get their pay. 

By a Member of the Court. Do you expect to prove that a fraud has beeu com- 
mitted ; that the Government has beeu defrauded of money ? 
The Judge-Advocate. Why, certainly, sir. 

By a Member of the Court. Do you expect to prove that General Howard is con- 
nected with defalcation ? 

The Judge-Advocate. That is a question of law, for the court to determine. 
The court was then cleared for deliberation. Upon the doors being re-opened, the 
accused and his counsel being present, the judge-advocate announced that the court 
directs the rule proposed by a member to be entered as the decision of the court, as 
follows : 

That the court will not go into the examination of the question whether or not the 
one hundred and seventy-four or other claimauts received, or did not receive, the 
amounts due them, except in cases where it is proposed to be shown that the amounts 
for such payments were not sent out by General Howard or his chief disbursing olficer, 
or, having been sent out, were returned to General Howard or his chief disbursing 
officer, and at the date of the meeti-ig of this court remained unaccounted for. 

The Judge-Advocate. If the court please, the court by this rule puts on me 

A Member of the Court objected to the judge-advocate objecting after the court 
had announced its decision. 

The Judge-Advocate. If the court please 

A Member of the Court. It is an order of the court, which I do not conceive the 
judge-advocate has any right to object to, after it has been made. 

The Judge-Advocate. I am not aware that I was making any objection to the rule 

of the court, whatever my private opinion might be ; but in this rule 

A Member of the Court. I insist upon my objection. 

The court was cleared for deliberation ; upon the doors being re-opened, the accused 
and his counsel being present, the president of the court said to the judge-advocate, 
" Will you state what you intend to prove ?" 

The Judge-Advocate. May it please the court, I think I can show by this witness, 
and to the satisfaction of the court, first, that in the ten Mandeville cases, in the wit- 
ness's hands, part of the 174 cases. General Howard received the necessary funds from 
the Treasury ; secondly, that he or his agents subsequently filed vouchers in the Treas- 
ury, bearing his approval, on which credit was claimed for actual payment to the ten 



14 

colored soldiers; thirdly, that subsequently these ex-soldiers applied to the War De- 
partment tor their bounty-money, alleging that they had not received it ; fourthly, 
that on receipt of certain St. Clair MiindevilJe records in December last an examina- 
tion showed that they have no enti'y on their face to show that these soldi(!rs have 
been paid, (such colunni being left blank,) although receipts for the payment from 
these soldiers are now in the Treasury,- aud General Howard or his disbursing officer 
claims credit for the payment. I have already shown that Mandeville was appointed 
agent by General Howard, and gave a bond to him for §10,000. 

I respectfully submit that it will remain with General Howard to show that he 
used due diligence to make the payment, and did send the money to the proper par- 
ties, rather than for me to show that he did not. I have no evidence to present to 
the court to show that General Howard sent out the money to pay these men. 

The Court. You may enter the record that the court has heard enough testimony 
on this branch of the case. 

It is obvious that this ruling seems to reject the tiieory both of any 
legal amenability attached to the Conmiissioner by the second section 
of the joint resolution of March 29, 1807, "that the Coniniissionei' shall 
be held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of 
the funds," and of any moral responsibility for the organization and 
maintenance of an adequate and efficient system of disbursement. 

It is to be noted, too, that this decision attaches no importan(;e to the 
time when, or the circumstances under which, money accounted for as 
paid, but not paid, to claimants, is restored to the proper custody, pro- 
vided it has been refunded before the meeting of the court. 

Nevertheless, as illustrative perhaps of the operation of the system of 
payment and account under consideration, the cases of a number of 
claimants, as described from the records, in the testimony of Mr. Moody, 
3()th day's proceedings, pages 2<S4, 285, to 289 [359 to 305,] may be re- 
ferred to. 

Without unnecessarily extending this report, the evidence in regard 
to three cases may be here recited by way of examples: 

Question. Referring now to the case of Heury Davis, late private Company G, Fif- 
teenth United States Colored Troops, settled by certificate 42949:?, for §300; and the 
case of James Ponder, late Company F, Fifteenth United States Colored Troops, set- 
tled on certificate 49492(i, for $300; and the case of Mike Oliver, late private Company 
G, Tiiirteenth Regiment United States Colored Troops, settled ou certificate 528752, for 
$21G.H0, what do you know about those? 

Answer. These cases were not called up by any claimant. The jackets bear in lead- 
pencil a statement as follows: "Cheek received back October 2, 1871." This remark 
led to an investigation, aud it was ascertained that the check was received back in 
one of the cases. I cannot fix which case it was, but I think it was the case of Mike 
Oliver or .lames Ponder. In these two cases we callexl for that money from General 
Howard, and General BmIIocIi came to the office to look into the records in relation to 
them, and in his examination he said that there was another case precisely similar, 
that of Diivis, arid he said " I will turn over tbe amount of the three cases to you," 
and he did so. This case, the case of Mike Oliver, is paid September 2, 1871. TLie 
case of Ponder is paid September 2(1, 1871, and the case of Henry Davis is paid May 
15, 1871. 

Question. When was General Balloch's attention called to those cases, and when 
did he turn over the money to you ? 

Answtu'. We called tlie attention of General Howard to two of the cases, I believe. 

Question. About what time? 

Answer. The money was taken up on our books as receiv'ed January 15, 1873. (Testi- 
mony of Mr. Moody, 288-289 [364].) 

It thus ai)pears that moneys to the amount of $810.00, payment of 
which had been accounted for as made in May aud September, 1871, 
were returned fifteen months from the latter date and more than six 
months after the Bureau affairs are transferred to new hands. The 
court report under this head that "there is no evidence of anything 
improper in this transaction." Jlut it is conceive;! that the time when 
these restitutions WT^re made, as well as the circumstances under which 
the discovery of the facts that induced the demand for them was made, 
was proper matter for consideration, as showing the operation of the 



15 

system in use in the Bureau, and its method, v.v want of method, in 
keeping accounts. 

Appertaining to the method pursued by the Bureau in making dis- 
bursements and keeping accounts therefor is the allegation contained 
in Exhibit B, that an amount of money received by the Bureau as fees 
of attorneys, under section 1 of the resolution of March 29, 1807, and 
withheld by the Bureau from unlicensed or suspended attorueys, was 
not, upon its discontinuance, accounted for or turned over to the proper 
olficer. 

This was money, for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of 
which, by the second section of the resolution of March 29, 1807, the 
Commissioner was made responsible. 

The facts are, that on September 23, 1872, the existence of such fund 
being accidentally discovered by the War Department, the late chief 
disbursing officer, Balloch, was required to furnish accounts for this 
money. In response, on the 2d October he forwarded to the Adju- 
tant-General a certificate of deposit to the credit of that officer in the 
sum of $2,807, accompanied by a list of the names of the attorneys on 
whose account these fees had been retained, and stating that he had left 
in the Bureau a record-book showing everything relating to this matter. 
(Exhibit B, letter L.) 

The book has not been found ; but on the 24th of December, 1872, 
General Howard wrote to the Atljutaut-General, (Exhibit B, letter P:) 

* * * General Balloch says coufidently, and reiterates it, that the book 

was left by him in his otitice-desk, which was left in uiy charge. I never saw the book. 
The tinaucial clerk says it was kept by General Balloch himself, all entries being made 
by him ; and that the book was never seen by him after the discharge of General 
Balloch. *## ,*»** 

The only explanation of the retention of this sum of $2,867, without 
notice of its existence to the Adjutant-General's Office until it was dis- 
covered by that office abont three months after the transfer of the Bu- 
reau to the charge of the Adjutant General, and a year after the receipt 
of all of such money, is found in the testimony of General Balloch, that 
he was advised by a clerk in the Second Auditor's Office that he might 
properly hold this money ; and that he did not regard it as i^ublic money, 
but private funds in his trusteeship. 

If this were so, it was a trust in possible perpetuity and without 
accountability. But in fact the amount was public money until paid to 
the attorneys on whose account it had been retained, and should have 
been accounted for by the Commissioner when relieved, whose responsi- 
bility can only be discharged by fixing it elsewhere, with proof of due 
vigilance. 

This charge is not noticed in the report of facto rendered by the court. 

Under the head of the defalcation of Maj. B. F. Kunkle, the court 
report that this officer was prosecuted at the instance of General Howard, 
and dismissed the service, and that his pay was stojjped to make good 
the sum of $673.24, unaccounted for. Under the head of the case of the 
one hundred and seventy-four claimants, it is also set forth that the 
money to pay eighty of these was sent to Eunkle, upon whom, by his 
sentence of court martial, a heavy fine was imposed with imprisonment, 
which was remitted. 

In connection with this finding, it is noted that the amount of the 
fine imposed — $7,500 — would not probably be equal to more than one- 
half, if that, of the amount due these eighty claimants, even if they are 
all of them the identical persons on account of whose unpaid claims 
Major Eunkle was fined, which is not shown in evidence. And the 



16 

amount of $073.24: is represented by three vouchers, witnessed in the 
presence of General Balloch, and received by him with the knowledge 
that the money to pay them had been misapplied. 

The facts nnder this head are also material to the question of the general 
civil amenability of the Commissioner nnder the resolution of 1860, here- 
tofore stated, and his general administrative responsibility for so much 
of the failure and confusion in Mnjor Knnkle's subdivision of the Bu- 
reau as is due to the character of the general system established in the 
Bureau. 

Under the 5th head, in regard to the amount of $1,331.03, acknowl- 
edged by General Balloch to have been paid to Kunkle to re-imburse 
him for omissions and mistakes in making payments, the facts are, that 
General Balloch testiiied on the trial of Rankle that the latter had 
brought liim the three vouchers, above mentioned, for claims of the col- 
ored soldiers whose names were signed to them, and had told him that 
he had spent the money, sent to him for these men, in making other pay- 
ments. The vouchers had oidy the name of one witness upon each of 
them, two being required ; whereupon General Balloch permitted Ruu- 
kle to sign in his office in Washington as the other witness, and accept- 
ed these vouchers upon his j romise to pay the claimants, on his return 
to Kentucky, from some money he expected to obtain in re-imbursement 
of the expenses he had paid of one of his agents. 

After the conclusion of the trial, General Balloch wrote to the Secre- 
tary of War a letter, in which lie staled that he Iiad omitted to state that 
it was in the power of Major Runkle to have paid tliese claims, as he, 
Ballocli, had paid him a sum of money to re-imb arse him for mistakes in 
paying wrong claimants. (Exhibit T^.) 

Before the court, General Ballocii testifies that he lent this sum to 
Major Runkle and received his note for it ; but he is not certain that he 
did not turn over a part of it to General Howard, to wit, the amount of 
the three vouchers already credited to him in the Treasury, $073.24, as 
assets in the hands of Runkle. He states tluit he forgot, on the trial of 
Runkle, to mention the important fact that money was thus given him 
to enable him to pay the vouchers he had rendered and witnessed in 
the manner described, but adds that after he came out of the court- 
room. Major Runkle called his attention to his omission to state this 
fact. (See his testimony, 12th and 2()th days.) 

6th head. Due by late Bureau for illegal and double payments and 
certain accrued interest, several thousand dollars. 

The court remark that this charge is very vaguely stated, and, follow- 
ing literally the report of the Adjutant-General's Office, proceed to treat 
it exclusively u[)on the evidence relating to the expenditure of certain 
interest derived from the investment of certain bounty- money in bonds. 
In accordance with what seems to be a more natural division of the sub- 
ject, the latter transaction will be commented on in discussing the mat- 
ter of that investment. 

But there was also a deficiency, or " difference," in the bounty-fund of 
the reguhir appropriation, found by the Adjutant-General's Office from 
the records of the Freedmen's Bureau, in the sum of $3,754.69, which 
was redu(;ed by the Auditor to $2,88l).4J), and is referred to by General 
Balioch in his letter under date of January 31, 1873, (Exhibit B, page 
49,) in which he writes to General Howard : 

In relation to the dillterence of !s;:},754.()l), Ixitween the amouuts of the certificates 
and the fund turned over, I would remark that on the ^Tth of this month I received 
from the honorable Second Auditor an official "statement of differences" on the liual 
settlement of my accounts, which had just been completed, and the difference against 



17 

]iie is $'2,889.49, instead of the amount above given, and the same has this day been 
turned over to Capt. James McMillan, the disbursing officer of the War Department. 
Of this amount, $•2,536.13 arises from having to pay claims the second time that had 
been paid on fraudulent representations to the wrong parties. 

This matter is also set forth in the letter of Captain McMillan, page 
31, Exhibit B, and in the testimony of Maj. J. M. Brown, (page 153 [193].) 

Upon the rule governing double payments, the court remark as fol- 
lows : 

According to the testimony of the Second Auditor, a payment made in good faith, 
although made to the wrong parties through deception jjracticed on the disbursing 
officer, would, as has hitherto been the case, have been passed to the credit of the dis- 
bursing Officer on satisfactory proof that such deceptiou had been practiced, and that 
the payor had not been careless or negligent in taking the proper precautions. 

These second payments by General IJalloch (those made with the proceeds of interest 
on bonds) could have been lawfully made from the regular bounty-fund. The first 
payment being made to wrong parties, did not discharge the obligation to pay the 
right claimants ; and for credit for the wrong payments General Balloeh should have 
looked to the practice stated by the Second Auditor. 

It would appear, however, from the history above stated of the " dif- 
ference" in the settlement of the accounts of the Bureau — which, as 
necessarily construed by the Second Comptroller, under the resolution 
of 18(39, were the accounts of the Commissioner — for the regular bounty- 
fund, that the Second Auditor's Office disallowed the double payment 
made out of that fund, and that the amount disallowed was paid by 
General Balloeh. Indeed, when it is considered that the moneys 
received by the Commissioner on the bounty-certificates were the spe- 
cific sums payable to particular claimants, it can hardly be conceived 
how the money of one claimant could be lawfully taken to pay another 
whose money had been fraudulently obtained by some one falsely per- 
sonating him. Whether the Auditor could make a new settlement out 
of the general appropriation is another question, upon which, however, 
his most deliberate opinion would seem to differ from that expressed to 
the court, and to have been more carefully pronounced in his official 
letter of January 6, 1873, to which his atteiition was called on the trial 
and in which he decides "that there is no authority under which such 
re-imbursement could be made by this Office. I find, however, that the 
accounting officers have recognized the right of the War Department 
to authorize relief in such cases, and when the express sanction of the 
Secretary of War has been given in writing, a credit for the erroneous 
payment has been allowed, to the disbursiug officer. In the case of 
Paymaster Ly ttle, by Secretary Poinsett, in August, 1838 -, Secretary 
Bell, August 3, 1841 ; Secretary Stanton, October 25, 186G ; and Sec- 
retary Schofield, June 12, 18G8." (Page 291 [3G7J.) 

7th. Irregular bounty-fund, $121,000. 

The court, under this head, report the history of this fund as it appears 
in evidence. The act of March 2, 18G7, chapter 18G, (11 Stat, at 
Large, p. 545,) made the Commissioner or his successor in office the 
"lawful custodian" of such fund and "trustee" of the same for the ben- 
efit of " said colored soldiers or their lawful representatives." Section 
2 authorized, the investment of said fund, or any portion thereof, 
in bonds, &c., and provided that any portion of the fund which may 
remain unexpended when said Bureau shall cease to exist shall be 
accounted for by said Commissioner to the Treasury of the United 
States. 

The act of June 10, 1872, chapter 415, (17 Stat., 3G6,) in providing 
for the discontinuance of the Bureau, declared that all acts and parts 
of acts pertaining to the collection and payment of bounties or other 
moneys due to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines, or their heirs, shall 

2 H C 



18 

remain in force until otherwise ordered by Congress; the same to be 
carried into effect by the Secretary of War. 

As the irregular bounty-fund ^Yas money due to colored soldiers or 
their heirs, the execution of the provisions of the law of March 2, 1807, 
in relation to such money was clearly devolved, by the act above re- 
cited, upon the Secretary of War. 

It was hence incumbent upon the Commissioner to transfer to the 
Secretary of War the unexpended balance, with the evidence that he 
had duly accounted therefor to the Treasury. Upon the succession of 
the WarDei)artment to the duty of the Bureau, June 30, 1872, no record 
of this fund was transferred, and the Adjutant-General's Office did not 
discover its existence until January 7, 1873. 

Under date of January 7, 1873, General Howard, as it is stated, 
simultaneously with the Adjutaut-Generars discovery, wrote to Major 
Vincent as follows : 

On the fliscliarge of ray chief disbursing officer, (Balloch,) he transferred to me a list 
of unpaid claiuiants, amounting to $1,628.59, wliich I proposed to have deposited on 
my return from Arizona, but it escaped my notice till Captain Sladen called mj^ atten- 
tion to it yesterday. 

On the 8th January, 1873, General Howard deposited in the Treasury 
the $1,628.5!), as the unexpended balance of this fund ; and on the 15th 
he transmitted to Major Vincent a book, obtained from General Balloch, 
containing a list of all the claimants on this irregular fund, and the 
dates of their payment. 

This book, when the Bureau was discontinued. General Balloch testi- 
fies (page 170 [222]) " was accidentally taken over to his house, where it 
remained until called for." 

The history of the vouchers sent to the Third Auditor, and afterward 
to the Second Auditor, is set forth in the report of the court. Their 
subsequent disposition is only known by the testimony of General Bal- 
loch, who states that he was directed by some official, neither whose 
name nor description he remembers, to take them away from the Second 
Auditor's Office. They were placed in his desk, where they were torn 
and defaced by rats ; they were then left on the top of his desk, where 
they remained when he was relieved October 11, 1871, with his retained 
copies of his other accounts. Upon the discontinuance of the Bureau 
the latter were taken to his house, but the vouchers for the retained 
bounty-fund have never, so far as the evidence would show, been seen 
since General Balloch was relieved. He suspects that they were used 
by the servants of the Bureau for waste-paper. 

The opinion of the accounting officers was asked as to what character 
of account was contemplated by the requirement of the enactment of 
March 2, 1807, "that any portion of the fund which should remain un- 
expended when the Bureau should cease to exist sliould be accounted 
for to the Treasury." But it is difficult to understand how any satisfac- 
tory account could be rendered without exhibiting the legitimate ex- 
penditures from which the balance results. 

W^hatever construction, however, the Commissioner, as the " lawful 
custodian" of this fund, may have in good faith placed upon this obliga- 
tion, it ouglit to have been clear to him that if there was no duty to 
account to the Treasury for the expenditures, so much greater was his 
obligation as a trustee to carefully preserve in his own office a faithful 
record of its action in this ])articular ; yet there is no evidence that upon 
relieving General Balloch from the duty of chief disbursing officer and 
assuming it himself, he took any care to secure these recoi'ds or to verify 
the transcript from them which that officer gave him with the remains 



19 

of the fund, for which he rendered no account to either the Treasury or 
the War Department for more than six mouths after his own relief — 
more than eight months later — from the charge of the Bureau. 

8th head. Misapplication of public funds and filing vouchers with 
the accounts covering a certain month, when payments were made in a 
different month. 

1st item. The misapplication of $36,314.77. 

2d item. Vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date of 
payment and therefore erroneous, $73,018.40. 

in reporting the facts under this head, the court have fallen into the 
error of applying to the first item testimony relating only to the second, 
and then concluding that there is no evidence to sustain the latter. 

The first item, $30,314.77, or, as corrected by the evidence, (see page 
279,) [353] $36,499.07, is not at all the matter respecting which General 
Balloch testifies, as set forth in the finding, but is a sum proved to have 
been taken out of the appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 
1872, to pay the expenses which were contracted in the fiscal year end- 
ing June 30, 1871, in violation of the act of July 12, 1870, chapter 251, 
section 6. 

The proof consists of the accounts rendered by the chief disbursing 
officer of the Bureau and other documentary evidence from the Treasury, 
verified by the oath of officials. Touching the illegality of this trans- 
action, the testimony of the Second Comptroller, delivered in reference 
to certain vouchers in evidence, is explicit. (See 26th day's proceedings.) 
Some of these vouchers, rendered as paid after July 25, 1871, (that is, 
during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872,) are, with the actual date of 
the indebtedness which they exhibit, as follows : Materials for school- 
house at IJaleigh, X. C, January, 1871, $3,000 ; materials for school- 
house at Xew Orleans, La., April, 1871, $16,500; materials for school- 
house at Helena, Ark., April 25, 1871, $3,000 ; materials for school- 
house at Chattanooga, May 4, 1871, $1,500 ; materials for school-house 
at New Orleans, April 23, 1871, $1,279.40. 

The receipts to these vouchers are all dated July 25, 1871, although 
these receipts set out that they were paid by checks upon the sub- 
treasury at New York, dated in April and May, 1871. 

The fact that these and other vouchers to the amount of about 
$36,000 could not have been paid out of the appropriation for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1871, in which the debts were contracted, is shown 
by proof that there was on hand July 1, 1871, of that appropriation, only 
$2,684.98; and that during the entire year following the amount received 
as balances of appropriations for former fiscal years and other resources, 
from which expenses incurred prior to June 30, 1871, could legally be 
'defrayed, was $13,460.14, while those expenses, as paid during the year 
ending June 30, 1872, amounted to $49,909.21, leaving $36,449.07 to be 
finally accounted for only as diverted from the appropriation for that 
year, which was made for specific purposes, to wit, collection and pay- 
ment of bounties and support of Freedmen's Hospital, (see act March 3, 
1871,) to which this sum has not been restored. 

The fact above stated, that the vouchers mentioned, although re- 
ceipted as of July, were actually paid in April or May, 1871, constitutes 
likewise part of the proof respecting the other item of $73,048.40, of 
which $25,240.83 is embraced also in the first item of $36,449.07, as the 
subject of a double misapplication, having at first been — as will be next 
shown — borrowed in April, May, and June, 1871, from the bounty- 
money to pay expenses legally payable only out of the appropriations 
for the support of the Bureau ; and, second, having been replaced by 



2(} 

misapplicatiou, as has already been explained, from an appropriation 
for the fiscal year subsequent to that to which it was legally chargeable. 
(Cauldwell's testimony, 25th dav j Harmon, 26th day ; Moody, 30th 
day.) 

The testimony of General Balloch, to which the report of the court 
adverts, is not applicable to any part of the $36,000 item, but 
relates in fact to a portion of the $73,048.4:0 item, being the sum of 
$47,807.57, which, together with the $25,240.83 above stated, make up 
this item. The first of these sums — 47,807.57 — is shown by the evi- 
dence to have been diverted from the bounty-money or funds other than 
annual appropriations for the support of the Bureau, between January 
1, 1871, and March 24, 1871, and at the latter date returned from the 
deficiency appropriation. The latter sum seems to have been diverted 
in the same way in April, May, and June, 1871, and returned from the 
appropriation for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872. 

General Balloch, in testifying respecting the diversion between January 
1 and March 24, 1871, (see proceedings of the 22d day,) estimates the 
amount at $35,000, or thereabouts ; but the official figures above given 
must be preferred to this mere conjecture. He states that having on 
hand, January 1, 1871, only $1,391.98, as a bala^ice of appropriation 
with which to carry on the work of the Bureau, he inquired of General 
Howard what should be done. The Commissioner proposed to endeavor 
to borrow the money from bankers, but he. General Balloch, told him 
that he could manage it without, and the Commissioner said, very well, 
and that he had no actual knowledge of these transactions. The 
monthly abstracts themselves appear, however, to have contained the 
usual certificate, signed by General Howard, in the following form : 

I have esamiued the vouchers contained in the above abstract, and hereby approve 
the payment of the same. 

O. 0. HOWARD, 

Commissioner. 

It appears that the sura of $47,807.57 having been thus withdrawn 
from the Treasury on the 24tli March, a deficiency appropriation of 
$127,000 became available, from which this borrowed money was re- 
turned to the appropriate fund. But the deficiency appropriation be- 
coming again exhausted, it was subsequently necessary, during April, 
May, and June, to have recourse to a similar process of transfer, and 
$25,240.83 was borrowed, Mhich was made good to the funds to which 
it belonged, and, with some $11,208.24 additional debts of the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1871, was paid from the appropriation for the next 
fiscal year. 

It is claimed by the defense that some of the expenses which are 
alleged to have been paid by this diversion of a])piopriations may have 
been paid out of the refugees and freedmen's and school funds; but 
it is observed that these expenses appear to have been accounted for as 
paid from the regular appropriations, and the amount available for 
their licjuidation, in the special lunds named, must have been too small 
to considerably affect the amounts of the several diversions as stated, as 
the following reports by the Bureau of their balances will show : 

Dec, 1&70. Jan., 1871. Feb., 1871. Mar., 1871. June, 1871 
Refugees and freedmen's fund. §494 54 $4% 70 $746 22 $757 52 $772 08 
School fund 4,G98 85 3,233 85 1,098 85 

These transactions, although from them no greater pecuniary injury 
to the Government appears to have ultimately resulted than is involved 
in the misapplicatiou of the appropriation for the service in certain 



21 

purposes of one year to the payments made for debts coatracted partly 
for different purposes in another, yet manifestly constituted violations 
of the following- provisions of law : * * * " All acts or parts of 
acts authorizing such transfer of appropriations be, and the same are 
hereby repealed ; and no money appropriated for one purpose shall 
hereafter be used for any other purpose than that for which it is appro- 
priated.'- (Act Feb. 12,' 1868, chap. 8, § 2, 15 Stats., 3G.) 

"That all balances of appropriations contained in the annual appropri- 
ation bills, and made specifically for the service of any fiscal j'ear, shall 
only be applied to the payment of expenses properly incurred during 
the year or to the fulfillment of contracts properly made within that 
year; and such balances, not needed for the said purposes, shall be 
carried to the surplus fund." (Act of July 12, 1870, chap. 251, § 5, 16 
Stats., 251.) 

The charge that funds of the United States duly certified as deposited 
with the United States Treasurer and in other depositories, (from June, 
1867, until August, 1871,) were not so deposited, is dismissed by the 
court upon testimony of the Second Comptroller "That such discrepan- 
cies were the general fact of such statements, and that seldom or ever 
•were, or could be, the statements of balances made monthly by disburs- 
ing officers without some such discrepancies." lu the cases in question, 
he selected at random from the statements on page 2, part 2, Exhibit B, 
and after giving them an examination, with the aid of General Balloch's 
clerk, (Terry,) he found that they were satisfactorily "explained." 

It would seem extraordinary that a stated report of the balances 
standing to the credit of every disbursing officer in the Treasury should 
be required from him by the Government, if such report, as a rule, would 
necessarily exhilut a difference from the fact, not susceptible of correc- 
tion by reference to other stated returns or accounts of the officer. In 
this view, such reports would certainly be worse than useless. This, 
however, is not understood, from the evidence, to be the case. The 
only instance given by the Second Comptroller to illustrate the common 
fallibility of these reports, is the case of a requisition drawn in favor of 
a disbursing officer in California, for instance. As soon as the amount 
is paid, it is charged to him, but as he does not receive it until some 
weeks after the charge, in the mean time there would be a discrepancy 
between his report of the Treasury balance aiul the fact as recorded in 
the Treasury. But in this case he would report less than the fact; 
while the cause of the discre})ancy would be readily discernible by a 
reference to the date of the acknowledgment of the requisition. 

In the present case there appear to be no data in the returns or 
records of the Bureau by which these vast discrepancies, ranging 
monthly in the year 1870 from about $121,000 to $820,000, can be fully 
explained. It is shown how they might have occurred, and how in part 
they probably did occur; but here the evidence halts. 

How decisive the examination of the Second Comjjtroller was, is shown 
from his following testimouy : 

Question. You did not go to your books to verify your exauiinatiou ? 

Answer. I could not have told by my books. I had to go to another Department — 
the Treasury Department. 

Question. Therefore, when you make this statement, you do not state whether these 
deticits are true or not ? 

Answer. I only found them, taking the Treasurer's statements and the explanations 
that he [meaning General Balloch's book-keeper] made in regard to a discrepancy, 
that they tallied it in those four cases. 

Question. Provided his statements covered the actual state of facts? 

Answer. Yes, sir. (Page 396 [499].) 



22 

The value of the explanation made to the Second Comptroller by the 
Bureau clerk, Terry, is shown in the following extract from his testi- 
mony, (page 373 [469] :) 

Question. When you received a Second Aiiditor's certificate of the amount of the 
hounty-claiiu, what did you have to do with tliat certificate ? 

Answer. It came froui Mr. Drew's room to us; it was taken right up on the cash- 
book as cash. * * * # # 

Question. How do you know those were taken up as cash in the reports of General 
Balioch ? 

Answer. The abstract was made out from certificates received, and they were copied 
first on the book and then handed over to another clerk who abstracted them, and 
one's footing agreeing with the other, it was supposed they were taken up. * * 

Question. Do you know why these certificates were taken up as " cash " before you 
actually got the checks ? 

Answer. I know of no other way as book-keeper in doing so. 

Question. Then your weekly rei^orts to the Secretary of the Treasury in this respect, 
were not truthful reports ? 

Answer. No, sir ; they were not strictly true. if * » 

This testimony refers to one allegation by the way of explanation of 
these discrepancies, namely, that the amounts of bounty-certificates 
were often reported as cash in the Treasury some time before they were 
actually cashed by the Pay Department, but the tabular statement of 
the Bureau's report of monthly balances (Exhibit X*^) and their j)laces of 
deposit, from May, 1SC8, until June, 1871, shows they included exhibits 
of amounts of bounty certificates in the hands of the Bureau — which 
agreed with those stated in the Treasury reports for corresponding' 
mouths — ranging from about .$03,000 to $4G3,.j20.90 monthly. 

It is hence to be presumed that this important item of pretended 
difl'erence should be eliminated from the calculation. 

As showing the uncertainty of these calculations in general, the tes- 
timony of the same witness may be quoted, as follows, (page 373 [470] :) 

The qiiestion is, have you any memoranda, or cash-books, or any data, by which you 
can fix from week to week the amount of money you reported in the Treasury, when, 
in point of fact, checks were drawn for the disbursement of that money ? 

Answer. No, sir. 

The explanation of these erroneous reports merely indicates certain 
methods of doing business and keeping accounts, to which these errors 
might be attributed, without showing specific things done to account 
for each untrue report of balance. 

But, independent of this inconclusiveness of evidence, a question 
arises as to the propriety of these methods and practices, because it is 
no excuse for one gross irregularity to show that it consisted of a num- 
ber of others oidy inferior to it in gravity, as separated parts are less 
than the whole. 

The explanation includes allegations as follows: 

First. That partial payments were made to contractors from whom 
vouchers were taken in blank, and until the whole indebtedness Avas 
paid the money thus disbursed upon " memorandum receipts " would 
be considered in the Treasury. This involved a violation of paragraph 
997, Regulations of the Army, before quoted, and was a mode of ac- 
count conducive to fraud. 

Second. That excessive balances embraced the amount of bounty- 
certificates in the hands of the Bureau. This has been shown to be 
improbable, and as involving a doubly-false report during a greater part 
of the time in question. 

Third. That checks received from the Pay Department and awaiting 
transfer, checks on the Treasury, and the amounts drawn in favor of 
disbursing ofhcers and sent to them throughout the country, were, while 



23 

in transitu, considered as cash in the Treasury. This was au unusual 
and irregular mode of doing business, lor which no reason is apparent. 

It is moreover difficult to conceive how the averages of these dis- 
bursements and receipts, nearly coincident in amounts as are the rela- 
tive periods in which they would naturally be corrected in the accounts- 
current or Treasury reports, can account for a constant report of uni- 
formily excessive balances through a long series of months. 

The foregoing explanations being, then, wholly uncertain and merely 
conjectural, there remains the fourth, and the only one based upon the 
definite allegation of a specific fact, namely : 

That the balances reported in excess from about February, 1870, until 
about February, 1871, covered United States bonds in the sum of 
$300,000, costing, with accrued interest, 8334,875, in which bounty-funds 
had been converted, deposited with the Treasurer of the United States, 
and from March, 1871, until October 11, 1871, a similar investment in 
bonds in the sum of 8250,000, costing 8279,375 ; 850,000 of which, with 
coupons, was some time in General Balloch's private custody. This 
investment was authorized by the Commissioner. The question of law- 
fulness will be considered hereafter. But the more it was regarded as 
justifiable, the greater reason why there should have been no conceal- 
ment. That the reporting such bonds as cash involved a concealment, 
whether intended or not, is manifest ; and the fact as to the last-named 
investment became the subject of the Treasury and War Departments' 
action only after it had been thus concealed for more than seven months ; 
while the earlier fact of the first investment aoes not appear to have 
been disclosed until the attention of the War Department was directed 
to these excessive balances in December, 1873, nearly two years after 
the fact had been thus concealed for a previous year by these untrue 
reports of balances. 

It is hence concluded, under this head, that the charge of rendering 
for several years reports that were erroneous, in representing that 
the monthly balances in the Treasury to the credit of the Bureau were 
greatly in excess of the actual facts, is only explained partly upon a 
hypothesis of an unnecessary confusion of accounts, which have not 
been so rectified as to exhibit in evidence the extent to which, if at all, 
they operated to produce these errors ; and otherwise, upon proof of the 
conversion of bounty-money into bonds and the withholding of the fact 
under the cover of the report of their value as cash in the Treasury, by 
which proof, however, only a part of these balances for a portion of the 
time is explained. 

The next charge to be considered is that relating to the conversion 
of bounty-funds into United States bonds. 

The allegations under this head, as exhibited in the letters of the 
Secretary of War contained in Exhibit B, concern, first, the lawfulness 
of the investments themselves ; and second, the manner in which the 
proceeds of the interest derived from them were expended and accounted 
for. 

While the court does not hold that such investments were justified 
by existing laws, yet in view of the fact that these investments were 
made only under the o])iniou and advice of the Second Comptroller, 
the court attaches no blame to General Howard therefor. 

The following provisions of existing law govern this question. By 
the resolution of March 29, 1867, heretofore quoted, the Commissioner 
is held responsible for the safe custody and faithful disbursement of 
the funds thereby intrusted to him. In the third section it is directed 
that the money shall be held and disbursed under the rules and regula- 
tions governing other disbursing officers of the Army. 



24 

The act of June 14, 1866, chapter 122, provides in section 1, "that 
it shall be the duty of every disbursin<;- officer of the United States, 
having any public mouey intrusted to him for disbursement, to deposit 
the same with the Treasurer or some one of the assistant treasurers of 
the United States, and to draw for the same only as it may be required 
for payments to be made by him in pursuance of law." Section 2 
provides, "that if any disbursing officer of the United States shall 
deposit any public money intrusted to him in any place or manner, 
except as authorized by law, * * * or shall, for any purpose not 
prescribed by law, withdraw from the Treasurer, assistant treasurer, or 
any authorized depositary * * * any portion of the public money 
intrusted to him, every such act shall be deemed and adjudged an 
embezzlement of the money so deposited, * * * withdrawn," &c. 

A similar provision will be found in the act of August 6, 1816, chai>ter 
19, section 16. (9 Stat, at Large, 63.) 

That the advice of an accounting officer could not absolve the head 
of a Bureau in the War Department from obedience to these laws 
there can be no doubt. There would seem to be as little room for any, 
that such mistaken advice could never excuse a violation of their explicit 
mandates. It may be well, however, to look at the reasons given by the 
Second Comptroller of the Treasury for his opinion. They will be found 
in his letter of February 9, 1871, on page 387, [487,] and his testimony, on 
page 397 [500] of the record, and are, briefly, that the acts in regaixl to 
the investment of public funds by disbursing officers did not apidy, as 
the Commissioner was made by law the payee upon accounts already 
adjudicated and settled at the Treasury, and had received payment by 
a disbursing officer who was credited at the Treasury by the Commis- 
sioner's receipt in every case. "There is no law," says the Second 
Comptroller, "forbidding the payee of an account for services or sup- 
lilies settled at the Treasury from investing the money." 

This proposition, in its ordinary application, is indubitable; but only 
for the reason that such payee is usually the person who, having fur- 
nished the supplies or performed the service, receives in payment there- 
for money which thus becomes his own. 

But in this case, by the same proceeding and under the same la^^' that 
constituted the Commissioner a payee of public money, he became at the 
same instant a payor or disbursing agent of that money, "responsible 
that it should be held and disbursed under the same rules and regula- 
tions governing other disbursing officers of the Army." 

Again, this money was either public or private property. If public 
money and it could have been lawfully converted into bonds, it is clear 
that the interest on these bonds should revert to the Treasury, from 
which, in conformity with section 9, article 1, of the Constitution, it 
could not be drawn but in consequence of an appropriation by Congress. 
If private money, it was the prop<'rty of the claimants, on whose separate 
accounts it was in si>ecific sums drawn from the Treasury, and the inter- 
est was properly divisible only j>ro rata among them. 

But it is not contended that this money, until delivered to the claim- 
ants, was other than public money. The interest on it, then, was de- 
rived from a fund for which the Commissioner was responsible by law. 
It hence devohed ujton him to see that a proper account was rendered 
of the additional sum thus coming into his hands. 

The laws requiring the prompt rendition of accounts are very explicit. 

The act ofJuly 17, 1862, chapter 199, directs : 

That any officer or agent of the United States, who shall receive public mouey which 
he is not authorized to retain as salary, pay, or emolument, shall render his accounts 



25 

monthly instead of quarterly, as heretofore ; and such accounts, with the vouchers neces- 
sary to the correct and prompt settlement thereof, shall be rendered direct to the proper 
accounting officer of the Treasury, and be mailed or otherwise forwarded to its proper 
address within ten days after the expiration of each successive month. 

And in case of the non-receipt at the Treasury of any accounts within a reasonable 
and proper time thereafter, the officer whose accounts are iu default shall be required 
to furnish satisfactory evidence of having complied with the provisions of this act ; and 
for any default on his iiart the delinquent officer shall be deemed a defaulter, and be 
subject to all the penalties prescribed by the sixteenth section of the act of August 
6, 1846, to provide for the better organization of the Treasury, and for the collection, 
safe-keeping, transfer, and disbursement of the public revenue : Frovlded, That the 
Secretary of the Treasury may, if in his opinion the circumstances of the case justify 
and require it, extend the time hereinbefore prescribed for the rendition of accounts : 
And provided further, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to restrain the 
heads of any of the Departments from requiring such other returns or reports from the 
officer or agent subject to the control of such heads of Departments as the public in- 
terests may require. (12 Stat, at Large, 593.) 

The Commissioner regarded this interest-money as appertaining to the 
refugees and freedmen's fund under the act of June 15, 1860. (See bis 
own statement, page 416 [524].) 

The first section of that act provides, "That all moneys raised in the 
United States for the support of refugees and freedmen, and received 
by any officer of the United States Army, shall be charged against such 
officer on the books of the Treasury Department, and accounted for by 
Mm in like manner as if such moneys had been drawn from the Treasury of 
the United States.''^ 

The Commissioner, regarding this money as part of the refugees and 
freedmen's fund, under the act of June 15, 1866, felt justified iu expend- 
ing it ; but in so doing it was only the more incumbent on him to account 
for it iu accordance with the provisions of the same law and that of 1862, 
above quoted. 

The Second Com[)trollor, in advising that the bounty-money could be 
invested, testifies that he decided that the " Commissioner was to account 
for this money precisely in the same way that he would account for any 
money drawn from the Treasury." (Page 397 [500].) Touching the right 
to expend this money, the Comptroller deposes as follows: 

Question. Did you then decide that he had a right to expend any portion of that 
money for any purpose he saw fit ? 

Answer. I did not. My opinion, and expression of that opinion, was what I have 
given iu the matter. I did not go beyond that at all. 

It accordingly appears that the advice of the Second Comptroller, in 
consequence of which the court holds the Commissioner blameless in 
converting public money into bonds, did not pretend to authorize the ex- 
penditure of that money, but did enjoin that it should be accounted for 
as for any money drawn from the Treasury. 

It has been already shown when the investments in bonds were 
made: — the first about February, 1870, to the amount, with accrued 
interest, of some $334,875, in bonds for $300,000, which, while deposited 
with the Treasurer, were monthly reported by the chief disbursing offi- 
cer of the Bureau as cash on dei)Osit in the Treasury, until about Feb- 
rnary, 1871, when they were reconverted into raonev ; the second, about 
March, 1871, to the amount of about $279,000, bonds for $250,000, 
$200,000 registered being deposited with the Treasurer, $50,000 coupon 
in charge of General Balloch, all being monthly reported as cash iu the 
Treasury, until about September, 1871, when, the fact of the latter 
investment being discoVered in the Second Anditor's Office, it became 
the subject of a report from Acting Auditor Herring, under date Septem- 
ber 30, 1871, to Mr. Secretary Boutwell, who communicated with the 
Secretary of War under date of October 4, 1871. 



26 

October G, 1871, Acting- Second Auditor C. F. Herring called upon 
General IJallocLi for an accurate statement of the exact cost of the bonds 
then held and the amount of interest received on the same. October 11, 
1871, General Ballocli rendered the following report, (page 351 [440] :) 

Cost of bonds, 250,000 at lllf 8279,375 00 

Amount of interest received -- 3, 520 12 

Payments made, as per statement of double payments 3, 041 7G 

This was the first account to the Treasury of the proceeds of these 
transactions, extending about twenty months prior to its rendition. 

On the 27th of December, 1871, General Howard wrote to the Secre- 
tary of War (page 353) [415J that he had already accounted for all the 
interest collected upon the United States bonds in his possession, and 
would make an official report of the disposition of the whole fund as 
soon as the bonds could be reconverted into currency. 

Under date of January 22, 1872, General Howard submitted to the 
Secretary of War a full statement of the -S 250,000 bond transaction, from 
which It appears that General Balloch, under date of October 12, had 
rendered to the Commissioner an account differing from the one ren- 
dered to the Second Auditor the dav i)reviously, as follows : (Pages 352- 
354 [443-4401.) 



Interest : 

Advance interest to May 1 
Three mouths' interest 



Disbursements 

Transferred to General Howard aud paid into Treasury. 



Rendered Sec- 
ond Auditor 
October 11. 



Rendered Gen- 
eral Howard 
October 12. 



$3,520 12 



3,520 12 
3,041 76 



■$5,543 10 
3,520 12 



9,063 22 
2, 222 90 



6, 840 32 



The supplementary account-current of the same transaction, under 
date of April 27, 1874, (Exhibit F",) shows a material difference as to the 
credit claimed for double payment in the abstract of names of those who 
received payment twice. The list accompanying General Balloch's state- 
ment of October 11 contains six names not on the abstract accompany- 
ing" the account-current, which in turn contains two names not on the 
other, and shows an erroneous charge of $284,71 on both, corrected in 
the last, this amount having been allowed in the settlement of accounts 
under regular appropriation. 

The amount finally claimed in this account for reimbursement of 
double payment is $1,655.71. 

These discrepancies are important as showing the natural consequence 
of an irregular transaction of this character, necessarily tending to a 
light estimate of responsibility and carelessness in keeping accounts, if 
to nothing wor.se. 

The attention of the Commissioner having been thus imperatively 
called to the obligation of rendering accounts of interest derived from 
the investment of public money, and this duty, so far as the tirst invest- 
ment was concerned, having been fultilled at such a late day, it would 
seem incredible that the Commissioner should not at the same time have 
felt in duty bound to have endeavored to relieve himself from responsi- 
bility for interest which had been received on account of the previous 



27 

investment of the sum of about 8334,000. This transaction, lasting for 
a year, had been completed in February, 1871 ; its profits were about 
.*19.14:6.57. General Balloch testifies that when he was relieved, Octo- 
ber, 1871, he turned over to General Howard accounts for the expendi- 
ture of this money. The Bureau was discontinued June 30, 1872, but 
not until December, 1873, when the reports of excessive balances already 
discovered became the subject of investigation in the War Department, 
was this transaction divulged, and not until December 31, 1873, was 
any account transmitted to the Third Auditor of this fund and its dis- 
bursement. 

In his address to the court, in reference to this matter, General How- 
ard says : 

General Balloch seems to have supposed that hy reutlering this account to me he 
had done all tluit was necessary, and the same was true with the other amount of 
.S19,44().57. When we were sent to the Second Comptroller, by a letter from the Secre- 
tary of War, to explain the larn;e discrepancies of statement iu part 2 of the charges 
of the Secretary of War, I spoke to the Second Comptroller respecting this interest- 
account and asked him to order General Balloch to render it somewliere. He said, " I 
cannot order it, l>nt I advise bim to render it." The next day after this, General B. 
took the .^19,446.57 account to tbe Second Auditor and had it settled. (Statement of 
General Howard, Record, p. 416 [524].) 

Thus nearly three years after all of this interest-money had accumu- 
lated, and more than two years after General Howard, in assuming him- 
self the duty of chief disbursing officer upon the relief therefrom of 
General Balloch, had received from the latter an account of the dis- 
bursements of this fund, and eighteen months after the Commissioner 
himself was in turn relieved, no account of the interest upon the invest- 
ment authorized by him of funds for which by express law he was 
responsible is rendered, but the ex-Commissioner is found requesting 
the Second Comptroller to order his former subordinate to render an 
account of this interest. 

But the account being at last rendered, one of its items has become 
the topic of a good deal of testimony received in the course of the in- 
vestigation, and "remains unexplained to the satisfaction of the court;" 
who, however, report that this " matter forms no part of the charges 
contained in the letters of the Secretary of War and accompanying 
documents, which this court was required to investigate." 

The letter of the Secretary of War to the Speaker, under date of 
January o, 1871, contains the following remark : 

There is no law sanctioning the purchase of bonds. My views iu regard to such 
transactions are, as expressed by indorsement October 9, 1871, on a letter from Gen- 
eral Howard to the Secretary of the Treasury, as follows: ''In my opinion there is not 
the slightest doubt as to the impropriety of any disbursing officer investing the money 
of the United States and afterward using the interest for any purpose whatever, except 
such use is sanctioned by express statute." (Exhibit B, part 2, p. 0.) 

In a letter to the late Commissioner, under date of January 2, 1874, 
the Secretary of War inquired, " If the said securities were United 
States bonds, what amount of interest accrued between the dates of 
purchase and sale, and what disposition was made of that interest?^ 
(Exhibit B, part 2, p. 7.) 

In answer to this demand. General Howard furnished General Bal- 
loch's letter of January 3, 1871, in which the expenditures are thus 
stated : 

Re-imbnrsement for double payment $1 , 338 56 

School-houses and asylums 16, 652 25 

Salaries of assistants and clerks 1,3.50 00 

Stationery and printing 105 76 

19. 446 57 



28 

The Secretary of War having charged that this investment was un- 
lawful, and that the expenditure of the interest derived from it was like- 
wise unlawful, and having demanded an account of this interest, it is 
therefore considered to have been fully within the scope of the inquiry 
to ascertain whether any unlawful or irregular act had been committed 
in connection either with the original investment or this subsequent 
expenditure of its profits. 

The item " school-houses and asylums, $16,625.25," represents a double 
credit taken at the Treasury for this amount paid for services rendered 
and materials furnished by A. R. Shepherd & Brother, under their con- 
tract for heating aud ventilating Howard University building, and the 
dormitory building adjacent thereto, known as Clark Hall, erected for 
the education of refugees aud freedmen by the Bureau of Refugees, 
Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands. The voucher upon which this credit 
was claimed out of the interest-fund is dated January 14, 1871, is cer- 
tified " approved and ordered paid, O. O. Howard, Bvt. Maj. Gen. U. S. 
A., Commissioner," is receipted by the contractors January 14, 1871, as 
paid in checks dated August 24, September 12, 20, November 20, 1870, 
and January 17, 1871, and was received by the Auditor January 2, 1874, 
with the supplemental account-current for interest rendered by General 
Balloch for October, 1871. This work and material was also charged 
for in voucher 90, abstract for March, 1871, receipted for March 24, 
1871, " by check paid in currency January 15." The certificate of ap- 
proval is not signed. The abstract is approved by General Howard, 
who certifies that he has examined the vouchers named thereiu, and has 
approved the payment of the sums noted thereon. 

It was doubtless in consequence of the holding of the court, that the 
account for this expenditure was not within the proper scope of the in- 
vestigation, that no question appears to have been entertained as to the 
legitimacy of the use of public money in making repairs in the house of 
an incorporated university of which the Commissioner was president. 

As early as January 8, 1874, the resemblance of this item to one in the 
abstract of March, 1871, of expenditures under the regular appropria- 
tion, attracted the attention of Mr. Moody, chief clerk of the freedmen's 
branch of the Adjutant-Generars Office. After a thorough investigation 
of the accounts of the Bureau in possession of the Adjutant-General's 
Office had shown that the}' furnished no information respecting the dis- 
bursement of this interest, on the 14tli of February, 1874, the Secretary 
of War asked the Secretary of the Treasury for a coi)y of the supple- 
mentary account current. 

On the 17th of February, 1874, General Howard wrote to the Secre- 
tary of War that he had that day learned from General Balloch that the 
accounts of A. 11. Shepherd & Co., for plumbing, which were apparently 
paid out of the refugees and freedmen's fund, as before reported, had 
ju'obably been twice allowed in the settlement of General Balloch's ac- 
counts. On the next day. General Howard wrote to the Third Auditor, 
asking to have his approval canceled, if upon examination the voucher 
is found to have been twice allowed. 

In reply to a formal notification of the Third Auditor under date of 
the 24th, of the disallowance of the voucher on tlie su[)plementary ac- 
count of interest. General Balloch writes to that officer under date of 
February 2!), (twelve days after he had informed General Howard of the 
matter according to the letter of the latter above quoted,) that " this 
matter has taken me entirely by surprise, and that it will require some 
little time for me to examine into it, and to discover when the mistake 
occurred, if any has occurred." (Page 249) [314.] 



29 

General Balloch testifies that while this letter, dated the 24:th, was 
being written in the Third Auditor's Office, "he happened in there," and 
was told, as he thinks, by the Auditor himself, of the matter. 

He states that he had disco veered the error himself two days before 
this, in hunting for some items in his cash-book, and as " I had had the 
vouchers in my hands only two or three days before, I saw it at once." 
(Page 187 [236].) 

But as General Howard wrote on the 17th of February, that on that 
day he had learned of the fact from General Balloch, and as the vouch- 
ers were all in the Auditor's Office — no copies being retained by him — 
(see p. 201 [253],) it may be inferred that General Balloch must have 
learned of the discovery of the double voucher in that office at an earlier 
date than that supposed by him when testifying. ~T 

The manner in which the voucher attached to the supplementary 
account was obtained is narrated by General Balloch as follows : 

It was not the custom to have duplicates approved ; the copy that is intended to go 
to the Department is approved, but the other one is not usually. When I came to 
make up the accounts tor General Howard, when I was relieved, as I stated in my 
direct testimony, when I hunted for the vouchers I could tind only one. I went to 
Shepherd & Brother, and had another one prepared. The one that I did find was the 
one approved by General Howard, and that was the one that I used in the account that I 
rendered to him for him to render to the Treasury, which he mislaid, or is not able to 
find. When I came to render the account a few weeks ago, after I found that he had 
not done it, I had nothing left but my duplicates, and in order to make the account 
good he had to approve them at that time, when I put them in. (Twenty-third day's 
proceedings, p. 201.) 

The reason why the copy of the voucher taken in duplicate which had 
not the approval on its face, and which, in accordance with the custom 
as above stated, should have been the retained copy, could not be found 
by General Balloch in October, 1871, is obvious, in the evidence, that 
such a copy was attached to the regular account for March, 1871, then 
rendered to the Treasury. 

The foregoing is believed to present the general view of the facts under 
this charge. The court report that it is "clear that General Howard 
did cancel his approval, and did report the facts to the War Depart- 
ment and the Third Auditor as soon as he discovered it." It is to be 
remarked, however, that this transaction is of a very grave character ; 
and besides the question, whether or not it involves a high crime on the 
part of any one, the facts suggest the inquiry whether the abstraction 
from the Treasury of a considerable sum of money for which, after nearly 
three years, there is yet no valid account, and the rendition therefor of 
a false voucher which, having passed the scrutiny of the accounting offi- 
cer,* might have forever remained undetected had it not been discovered 
by the War Department, was not in great extent attributable to the 
omission of General Howard, continued for the same period of time, to 
require the account prescribed by law to be rendered. 

The decision that the matter forms no part of the charges which this 
court was required to investigate, of course leaves undetermined this 
and all the other important questions pertaining to the subject. 

The only other specific subject of the investigation is the charge that 
the records of the Freedmen's Bureau were in a state of great imper- 
fection and disorder. 

The court treat this charge principally as it depends upon the con- 
flicting testimony of certain clerks in the Adjutant-General's Office and 
others in the Freedmen's Bureau ; and report that they did not deem it 
necessary to " investigate this dispute." 

* Letter Third Auditor, p. 347. 



30 

The court are of opiuiou that the transfer to new bauds iu a verj 
short time of the immense records of so extensive a business machinery 
implies greater or less confusion for a long time after such a transfer. 
The court concludes : 

The evidence before the court certainly does not indicate anything like such an 
amount of confusion and incompleteness as is charged, nor more than was reasonably 
to be expected under the peculiar circumstances of the transfer, and iu view of the 
peculiar nature of the business of the Bureau. 

The charge, thus disposed of, is regarded as an important one, de- 
manding fidl and exact investigation. The inviolability of public 
records is one of the most solemn concerns of the public service. It is 
conceived that means could almost always be devised and employed that 
wonld secure the transfer of any official records from one lawful custody 
to another without loss or confusion, especially as regards the removal 
of books and papers from one building to another in the same city. 

The responsibility for any neglect in the performance of this duty 
ought to be definitely determined, in order that a rigorous accountability 
should be enforced. 

The evidence is regarded as showing that the Adjutant-General's 
Office made the most complete provision for the security of the records 
of the headquarters of the Freedmen's Bureau in their transfer. The 
letter of the Adjutant-General to the Commissioner, under date of June 
29, 1873, shows that his attention was called to the order of the Secre- 
tary of June 25, directing that the records should be delivered at such 
place as the Adjutant-General should designate, and that the responsi- 
bility of the Adjutant-General's Office would consequently not commence 
until the delivery of the records in their new depository. 

General Howard, in his letter to the chairman of the Military Com- 
mittee of the House, remarks: 

Confusion was produced in the transfer itself. General Vincent kindly sent wagons, 
messengers, laborers, and clerks to take the archives. My few clerks were irritated 
and disappointed, having been suddenly cut ott'from Government employment, and, as 
it seemed to them, treated as if in disgrace, though they were as able and upright as 
their successors. Books and papers were taken with little regard to order and tum- 
bled into the carts. We picked up important papers en route to the new office, and 
books were found on the stairs and on the ground. I know that the order of the Adju- 
tant-General and the report make me responsible for this careless and disorderly pro- 
ceeding. As soon as General Vincent called my attention to this responsibility, I did 
what was iu my power to keep my agents and his straight. 

But in the more important bearing of this charge, the evidence in re- 
lation to the manner of transfer^ has little application. The mode in 
which the books and accounts, showing the disbursements of the Bureau, 
were kept Avas disclosed quite freely in the course of the investigation 
generally, and has been sufficiently exhibited in discussing the facts de- 
veloped under other heads of the case. 

As matter of general defense, it is to be noted that the principal sub- 
ordinates and assistants of General Howard testified before the court to 
the great labor devolving upon the Commissioner in the discharge of his 
multifarious official duties, and his unremitting and zealous attention 
to them. 

The extent of the work in his charge, especially previous to the year 
18G9, comprehending the supervision of the schools, hospitals, and 
abandoned lands for freedmen and their contracts for labor and the 
administration of justice to them by local magistrates and tribunals, is 
fully set forth in the testimony of Gen. Eliphalet Whittlesey, the assist- 
ant adjutant-general of the Commissioner. (Twentieth day's proceedings.) 

During the existenceof the Bureau, the amount of funds, including over 



31 

$8,000,000 i)ay and bounty of colored soldiers, which went into its pos- 
session, was about $21,000,000. 

It is also proved that General Howard, in obedience to orders, was 
absent from Washington on duty in connection with the Indians of 
Arizona in the year 1872, between March 7 and June 20, and from July 
10 to November 5. 

The foregoing is believed to present an impartial summary of the evi- 
dence in the case. 

In performing this duty of revision, prescribed by law and devolving 
upon this ofUce by order of the President, it has been found necessary 
to amplify the very concise abstract of facts rendered by the court. 

The statement exhibited in this report is the result of a thorough ex= 
aminatiou of the evidence contained of record. Oare has been taken 
to accept nothing for fact that is not either admitted or clearly estab- 
lished by competent proof. 

The case presents little conflict of testimony, and it is believed that 
under the most important charges, the facts stated are only those 
respecting which there is no question. 

The provisions of law which are regarded as governing these facts 
have been likewise plainly set forth, as they appear upon the statute- 
book. 

If, therefore, this report indicates any conclusions different from 
those reached by the court, the issue thus raised can be readily deter- 
mined upon the facts and the legal principles applicable to them. 

The court find that General Howard " has not, with knowledge and 
intent, violated any law of Congress, regulation of the army, or rule of 
morals." 

So far as this declares that he has not acted in a spirit of defiance or 
contempt of law, or from any corruptly self-seeking motive, no reason 
is found in the evidence for any dissent from this opinion. 

His conduct, however, must be further judged according to the famil- 
iar maxims that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and tliat every man 
is presumed to contemplate the natural consequences of his own acts. 

When the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau was intrusted by 
Congress with the duty of taking better care than formerly that pay and 
bounty should be faithfully paid to the colored people to whom it be- 
longed, if he not ouly failed to provide an efficient system for the execu- 
tion of this trust, but adopted one which, rejecting safeguards which 
had been previously observed, was wholly inadequate and productive 
of mistake and fraud and their concealment: — for such dereliction, then, 
ignorance of law, pressure of many duties, or inexperience in adminis- 
tration, though combined with good intentions, are matters of j)alliation, 
not of justification. 

If, with only the same excuse. General Howard sanctioned and used 
a ^stem and method of accounts which failed to truly show the dis- 
charge of the trusts from which they served to acquit him, the same 
judgment must be pronounced. 

If, when. General Howard, desirous of increasiug the revenue of his 
Bureau, conceived the idea of converting public money into bonds, and 
did not report this scheme to his superior officer, the Secretary of War, 
but upon the mere verbal advice of one of the accounting officers of the 
Treasury, effected such a con v^ersion in violation of positive law, his igno- 
rance of that law is no excuse that can be safely recognized under such 
a form of government as ours. 

If investments of public money, for which by law General Howard 
was responsible, having been made by his orders as above stated, he 



32 

failed to require a proper accoimt of the fact to be rendered, so that 
his subordinate coustautly, for nearly two years, reported that the 
money thus invested was cash in the Treasury of the United States; 
and, further, if General Howard failed to cause any report to be made 
of the interest of these investments for a long time after the periods 
prescribed by law, so that the fact of one investment of a sum as large 
as $300,000, for a whole year, was not known to the Secretary of War 
until nearly three years after it had been reconverted into money, and 
no account was rendered of this interest for the same period — although 
such an account is admitted to have been placed in General Howard's 
hands more than two years before the same was given to he Treas- 
ury — and if, when the account is made, it is found to cover a charge to 
the amount of sixteen thousand dollars once before paid out of other 
public money, then the serious question arises whether this delay, con- 
trary to law, in accounting, by which a deficit lay concealed for three 
years, is not due to gross neglect of duty on the part of the Commis- 
sioner ; and this question is not answered by the mere excuse that the 
conversion of the public money was sanctioned by the Second Comp- 
troller, and that for the management of this investment and its profits 
there is a subordinate of the Commissioner, who, as disbursing officer, 
can be held responsible. 

If General Howard, upon assuming personally the duty of disbursing 
officer, upon the relief therefrom of his assistant, received from him an 
alleged balance of a fund of which the Commissioner was, by act of 
Congress, the lawful custodian and trustee, and failed to verify that 
balance, or to take any measure to secure the vouchers for the expend- 
iture of the fund of which it was the remainder, so that there is no 
complete account extant of the disbursement of some one hundred and 
twenty thousand dollars of the fund, and did further neglect to account 
for or transfer the said balance until six months after he was relieved 
from duty, then for all this, the pressure of other public business and 
forgetfulness are also matters of palliation, not of excuse. 

It is deemed unnecessary to pursue this train of illustration at greater 
length, inasmuch as the facts fully set forth in this report, in connection 
with the rules of law governing them, are not deemed to call for further 
comment. 

It is to be observed, in conclusion, that with whatever indulgence or 
commendation the prevailing spirit which characterized General How- 
ard's performance of his arduous and responsible duties may be regarded, 
it is believed that in the expression of such indulgence or commenda- 
tion care should l)e taken to give no sanction, express or implied, to 
the manifest violations of law which this investigation has brought to 
light, and which have been hereinbefore fully commented on. 
Yerv resiiectfullv, your obedient servant, 

J. HOLT, . 
Judge- AdcocateGeneral. 



[General Orders Xo. 75.] 

War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

}YaiiJtington, July 3, 1874. 7- 
The following order is promulgated by direction of the President of 
the United States : 

I. The special court of inquiry, of which General William T. Sher- 
man, United States Army, is president, instituted by Special Orders 



33 

No. 35, February 16, 1874, and Special Orders No. 51, March 9, 1874, 
from this Office, " to fully investigate all the charges against Brig. Gen. 
O. O. Howard, contained in the communication of the Secretary of War 
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of dates December 4, 
1873, and the 5th day of January, 1874, and to report their opinion as 
well upon moral as upon technical and legal responsibility for such 
offenses, if any, as may be discovered," has reported as follows: 

The special court of inquiry, after a careful aacl mature consideration of the evidence 
adduced before it, report as follows, under the requirements of the letter of the Presi- 
dent of April 22, 1874, and of the joint resolution of February 13, 1874 : 

Fads. 

The letters of the Secretary of War of date December 4, 1873, and of January 5, 1874, 
with the accompanying documents, place under distinct heads the specific matters 
which this court was required to examine; but before proceeding to the consideration 
of the letter of the Secretary of War of January 5, 1874, it seemed best to consider iu 
their order the eight specific statements set forth in the letter of December 4, 1873. 

It is proper to preface the statement of facts by a somewhat detailed jnarrative of 
the manner of doing business in the Bureau of Refugees, Freedaien, and Abandoned 
Lauds, as far as it refers to — 

Payment of hountles under tlie joint resolution of March 29, 1867. 

It appears that iu the early pai't of 1867, the accounting officers of the Treasury De- 
partment became uneasy at the uumereus frauds being perpetrated on colored claim- 
ants for bounties under the then existing acts of Congress, and called General Howard 
into consultation concerning the payment of these bounties through the agency of the 
Freedmen's Bureau. 

After advising with General Howard, these officers of the Treasury Department drew 
up a bill to ett'ect this object, and submitted it to Congress, and upon their recommen- 
dation the joint resolution of March 29, 1867, somewhat difi"ering from the bill sug- 
gested by them, was passed by Congress. This law devolved iipon the Commissioner 
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands the payment of bounties 
to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines. It in terms made General Howard, as Com- 
missioner, responsible for the " sale-keeping and disbursement " of funds appropriated 
for this purpose, but provided in the second section that he should be assisted iu these 
payments by the officers and agents of his Bureau. He accordingly set to work to pay 
claimants, through the officers and agents of the Bureau, in accordance with this pro- 
vision, in the following manner : 

General George W. Balloch, the chief disbursing officer of the Bureau, was the princi- 
pal agent for these payments, and was so recognized and treated both by the War and 
Treasury Departments. A Treasury certificate for the amount due each legal claimant 
was made out in the name of such claimant and sent by the Second Auditor of the 
Treasury to General Howard, who placed these certificates in the hands of General 
Balloch, who drew the money upon them from the paymaster. Vouchers, duly prepared 
for the signature of the claimants, were then sent to the agents of the Bureau in dif- 
ferent parts of the country, with a list of the claimants for whom the vouchers were 
prepared. The agents hunted up the claimants and identified them through their de- 
scriptive lists, by personal examination, and in any other sufficient manner; procured 
their signatures to the vouchers for the amount due each, and returned the vouchers 
to General Balloch, who, upon their receipt, transmitted lists of those from whom 
signed vouchers had been received, with a check for the gross amount, to the agent by 
whom the signed vouchers had been sent back. It then became the duty of the agents 
again to look up the claimants, and put into the hands of each, in currency, the amount 
due him. As soon as his check left his hands, General Balloch filed in the Treasury, 
to his credit, the vouchers covered by it. This was the general rule, though in isolated 
cases, remote from the station of any agent, the money, in rare instances, was sent to 
sorne officer of the Army, or some one known to General Balloch, to be handed to the 
claimant. In some cases the money was paid in this manner through revenue officers, 
cashiers of freedmen's banks, or through postmasters, but only, as appears, when there 
was no agent in the vicinity. 

In every case, except the isolated cases above mentioned, involving small payments 
to one or two persons, and where Regular Army officers were employed, the agents 
were bonded officers, their bonds covermg any liabilities they would have power to 
incur. 

By this mode of conducting business, it resulted that vouchers were filed in the 
Treasury, and credit taken therefor, before the money actually reached the claimant, 

3hc 



54 

aud in some cases, not nunuivons when compared with the great number of claimants 
paid, it happened that a claimant could not be found and his money was returned to 
General Balloch, while, at the same time, his receipt for the money was already in the 
Treasury and credited to General Balloch. Some cases of this kind were unavoidable. 
In this manner payments of bounties to colored soldiers, sailors, and marines were 
made from 1867 to lb72, and it is the concurrent testimony of the Treasury officials that 
frauds and complaints of non-payments very greatly decreased, and that the system 
was far better and more efficient than any pursued before, and still pursued in the same 
kind of payments to white soldiers. In proportion to numbers, notwithstanding the 
much greater difficulty of identilicatiou of colored claimants, the losses which fell upon 
claimants, by frauds or otherwise, in the payments to colored soldiers by the Bureau, 
and to white soldiers through the Pay Department, were in favor of the former. 

It is now proper to take up, in order, the charges under the eight headings in the 
letter of December 4, 1873. 

Heading 1. " Claimed by colored claimants, who allege that they have not been paid 
their pay aud bounty, although the records of the Treasury Department show settle- 
ment of their claims and vouchers have been filed by the late Bureau as evidence of 
payment of .$33,88rt.39." 

This court did not consider it necessary to summon before it the one hundred and 
seventy-four claimants referred to, to ascertain whether or not they had actually 
received the amounts claimed to be due them, since even if their allegations could be 
fully established it would not necessarily follow that fraud or wrong-doing had been 
committed. If it could be shown that the amounts thus due had actually been sent 
to make these payments, and had thus passed from the possession of General Howard 
and his chief disbursing officer, and such portion, if any, as had been returned, because 
the claimants for it could not be found, had been then accounted for properly, the 
responsibility of General Howard or his chief disbursing officer would be discharged. 

To this investigation, therefore, the court proceeded with the following results: 

Of these one hundred and seveuty-four claimants who allege that they have not been 
paid, eighty were said to have been paid through the agents in Kentucky. Maj. B. P. 
Eunkie, of the Army, was the principal payor, without giving bonds as other officers 
of the Army on the same duty are now. 

An investigation made by General Howard and by a board of officers instituted by 
him first exposed wroug-doing in this connection, and on the Commissioner's recom- 
mendation Eunkie was tried by a general cqiirt-martial, and on couvictiou was 
cashiered, heavily fined, and sentenced to imprisonment. 

The tine aud imprisonment were afterwards remitted by the President. There seem 
to be only seven of one hundred and seventy-four claimants who were jiaid by General 
Howard himself. He has established, in all of these cases, that the money was sent 
for their payment in the usual manner heretofore explained, and such as has been 
received back, because of the impracticability of finding claimants, has been duly 
accounted for. In all the other cases the same fact is found, except in a few, which 
can be readily explained. There is no evidence of anything improper in this trans- 
action, and the Treasury officials testify that all these cases can be settled in the usual 
manner by them, and were actually in process of settlement at the time when this 
court met. 

Heading 2. " Defalcation of St. Clair Mandeville, $8,503.29." 

Mandeville was appointed agent of the Freedmen's Bureau in 1867, on the recom- 
mendation of General Joseph A. Mower, commanding the Fifth Military District. This 
recommendation was couched in very strong language, and bore the highest testimony 
to the character and fitness of Mandeville. He gave bonds for $10,000 to " General 
Howard, Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau, and his successors in office." 

On the 1st of November, 1869, Mandeville died suddenly of cholera, following an 
attack of yellow fever. His clerk died two days before, of yellow fever. General 
Mower immediately took charge of his office. There was found in his safe about 
$9,000. This was supposed to be public money, and was taken charge of as such by 
officers detailed by General Mower, together with all his papers. Shortly afterward 
Mr. Sauvin6t was appointed agent in Mandeville's place, and was directed to make a 
full examination of the books and records. He did so, and gave as his opinion, from 
such examination of books, that a number of claimants, whose claims amounted to 
$17,000, had not been paid, although the l)ooks indicated that they had. There seems 
to be no evidence whatever that these persons were not paid, and it appears that only 
ten or twelve ever stated that they had not been. (Beenuiu, p. l.^O.) Nevertheless, 
the $9,000 found in Mandeville's safe were used in making payments, but, so far as can 
be ascertained, not to those who, according to Mr. Sauvin(5t, had not been paid. 

The widow of Mandeville maintains that the mouey found in the safe was Mande- 
Tille's own property. Suit was brought by order of General Howard, and subsequently 
assumed by the Department of Justice against the sureties on his bond, aud is now in 
process of trial. It is not by any means established that Mandeville was a defaulter, 
or that any mouey was lost to the Government or the claimants by his acts ; but the 



35 

issue of the suit against his sureties will determine the question, and make good to 
the United States the alleged defalcation if it should be found to have occurred. Ten 
of the cases, covering about $2,000, used in making up the amount of Maudeville's 
alleged defalcation, are also embraced in the list of the one hundred and seventy-four 
cases above referred to, so that the sum of $"2,000 has thus beeu twice used in making 
up the amount for which General Howard is held responsible. 

Heading 3. " Defalcation of O. C. French reduced to $3,814.54." 

French was aijpointed agent of the Freedmen's Bureau at Natchez, Miss., on the 
recommendation of Gen. A. C. Gillem, commanding Fourth Military District. Part of 
the money for which he has failed to account has been paid by one of the sureties on 
his bond and by himself. Judgment has been obtained against French and his other 
sureties, with little question that the whole amount will be recovered. 

Heading 4. " Defalcation of Maj. B. P. Eunkle, $673.24." 

Ruukle was an officer of the Army, regularly detailed by the Secretary of War as 
agent of the Freedmen's Bureau. 

He was guilty of wrong-doing in the performance of his duty ; was so reported by 
General Howard ; was arraigned and tried therefor, and dismissed from the service. 
His pay was stopped some time before to make good his accountability to the Treasury 
for this special sum, $673.24, and if any money has been lost through him it is not due 
to the negligence or want of action of " General Howard." 

Heading 5. "Acknowledged by ' George W. Balloch' to have been paid to ' Ruukle ' to 
re-imburse the latter for mistakes, &c., $1,331.03." 

It is shown by the testimony of" Geueral Balloch," and nowhere contradicted, that he 
lent this sum out of his own private means to " Ruukle" to pay up what had been erro- 
neously paid by " Ruukle," and that this sum is a personal[debt owed to him by " Runkle," 
and in no sense an amount due or charged to the United States. 

Heading 6. " Due by late Bureau for illegal double payments and certain accrued in- 
terest, several thousand dollars." 

This charge is very vaguely stated. " General Balloch," in his letters to " General 
Howard," dated December 27, 1871, and January 3, 1874, submits accounts for certain 
interest arising on the investment of sums of '$334,875 and $279,375, in United States 
bonds, iu which appear the items of $1,338.56 and $1,496.25, for re-imbursemeut for 
double paymeut of bounties ; that is, to pay to the rightful claimant money which had 
been paid erroneously, but iu good faith, to wrong parties. These items are'admitted by 
" Balloch" himself. Their legality or propriety maj' be a matter of question. According 
to the testimony of the Second Auditor of the Treasury, a payment made in good faith, 
although made to wrong parties through deception practiced on the disbursing officer, 
would, as has hitherto been the case, have been passed to the credit of the disbursing 
officer on satisfactory proof that such deception had been practiced, and that the payor 
had not been careless or negligent in taking the proper precautions. 

These second payments liy " General Balloch " could have beeu lawfully made from 
the regular bounty-fund. The first payment, being made to wrong parties, did not dis- 
charge the obligation to pay the right claimants, and for credit for the wrong payment 
General Balloch should have looked to the practice stated by the Second Auditor. 

It could now, however, be v^asily settled by the Treasury Department, in accordance 
with the practice testified to k v the Second Auditor and stated heretofore in this con- 
nection. 

Heading 7. " Irregular bounty-li.nd, $121,000." 

The history of this irregular bounty-fund is as follows: Daring the war some of the 
States sent money to officers serving in the South to buy substitutes to fill up their 
quota under the draft from among the colored people. A portion of the money thus 
^^^* '^^'^ ^^*''*'°^,'^^ '°,^;'^®„^^."^^^ °^ officers who had been superintendents of negro 

' "" " commanding Department 

was, by the President's 

^ the Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. Shortly after the organization of the Bureau of Ref- 
ugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, in 1865, when these two officers became agents 
of the Bureau, " General Howard," ascertaining that the money thus held by " Geueral 
Butler's" order was still in their hands, instructed them to turn it over to "Gen. 
George W. Balloch," chief disbursing officer of the Bureau. The two officers were 
"Col. Orlando Brown," assistant commissioner for the State of Virginia, and " Capt. 
Horace James," assistant quartermaster of volunteers. The first tarred over to him 
$84,334.81; the latter, $21,584.17; total, $105,918.98. "Captain James" was author- 
ized to expend $7,491.43 of the $29,075.60 originally in his hands f(u- the purpose men- 
tioned in " paragraph 2," order " No. 90," above referred to. Both of these officers sent 
with the money a list of persons to whom it was due. The amount due on " Brown's" 
list was $83,320.84; on James's list, $29,075.60 ; total, $112,396.44. Total amount of 
money received by "Balloch " from these officers, $10.5,918.98, being a deficit in amount 
needed to pay, according to the lists, of $6,477.46. This deficit was made up by " Bal- 
loch from interest on the United States bonds, in which all but a very small fraction 




36 

of the aniouut turned over by " Biowu " bad been invested, viz, $84,300. " Ou March 
2, 1867," an act of Congress was passed (see act) constituting the Comuiissiouer of the 
Freedmen's Bureau the trustee of this fund, and authorizing hira to invest it for the 
sole benefit of the sokliers themselves or their rightful heirs, &c., in United States 
bonds. The only provision of that law or any other on the subject prescribing the ac- 
countability for the expenditure of this fund, directed that ou the discontinuance of 
the Bureau of Kefugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, the Commissioner shall ac- 
count for the balance left in his hands to the Treasury of the United States. " General 
Balloch," into whose hands as chief disbursing officer of the Bureau this money came, 
believed that he must render an account of it to the Treasury precisely in the same 
manner that all other money in his hands was accounted for, and accordingly did ren- 
der accounts (abstracts and vouchers, with his other accounts) for disbursements from 
January 1, 1866, to May, 1868, to the Third Auditor. He was informed positively by 
the Third Auditor that this •' irregular fund " was in no sense public money, nor classed 
under any head known to the Treasury Department, and could not be audited by that 
Office. The accounts were then transferred to the Second Auditor's Office, when the 
same decision was rendered and confirmed by the Second Comptroller. (See evidence 
of " Balloch," " Vinson," " Eutherford," and " French.") The Second Auditor declined 
to audit the accounts for the same reason given by the Third Auditor. It seems, how- 
ever, from the evidence of Mr. Vinson, clerk Third Auditor's Office, that he did examine 
the accounts and vouchers rendered to his Office on this fund, covering a period of 
more than two years, and that they were regular accounts, sustained by ])roper vouch- 
ers, and in all respects such accounts as would have been allowed if the Office had had 
authority to pass upon them. Finally, in 1870, (May 25,) these accounts and vouchers 
were all taken away from the Treasury by " General Balloch," by an order from some 
official. Upon referring the matter to the Second Comptroller, he affirmed the decision 
of the Auditors, but remarked that " Balloch" had better continue to take vouchers in 
the regular way for the disbursement of this fund, and when the Bureau should be 
discontinued the second section of the act of March 2, 1867, " directed the Commis- 
sioner what to do." In his testimony the Second Comptroller contirms this statement, 
and gives the opinion that the Secretary of the Treasury is the person to whom the 
trustee, under the act, is to account for his trust. 

In compliance with a request from this court, " General Balloch" has made up an ac- 
count of his expenditures of this fund from the "irregular- bounty-book," the "vouchers" 
which he had been ordered to withdraw from the Treasury, and which he left in the 
office of the chief disbursing officer, having been lost or mislaid after he was relieved 
from that duty. 

The inference contained in Exhibit " B," page 19, that General Balloch concealed or 
destroyed these vouchers to prevent discovery of frauds and irregularities is not 
sustained, even by implication, by any testimony that has been given. There has 
been given no evidence whatever to discredit " Balloch's " statement that the accounts 
and vouchers for these expenditures were left in his office when he was relieved, and 
afterwards mislaid or destroyed without his knowledge or consent. It is presumed that 
this whole account will be now rendered to the Second Auditor, who has been designated 
by the Secretary of the Treasury as the proper person to receive and audit these ac- 
counts. 

Headings. "Misapplication of public funds and filing vouchors with the accounts 
covering a certain month, when payments were made in a prior month, viz: 

Misapplication $36,314 77 

Vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date of payment, and 

therefore erroneous 73, 048 40 

Total 109,363 17 

Misapplication, $36,314.77." 

It appears that the chief disbursing office!', General Balloch, while waiting the pas- 
sage of a deficiency bill, in order to avoid breaking up all the organization of the office 
and stopping all the current business of the Bureau, including as its principal work 
the payment of bounties, borrowed from the general fund to his credit on his disburs- 
ing accounts, which consisted almost of the moneys paui to him by the Pay Department, 
upon a settlement of the bounty claims, this sum of $36,314.77, which amount was re- 
placed from the deficiency appropriation of $127,000 for the service of the Bureau as 
soon as it became available. 

" Vouchers covering time subsequent to the actual date of payment, and therefore 
erroneous, $73,048.40." 

This charge is not sustained, but is directly contradicted by the evidence. There was 
no such transaction as is here charged. 

The only other matter contained in the letter of the Secretary of War of December 
4, 1873, and accompanying documents, tliat now remains to be considered, is the ques- 
tion of confusion and incompleteness in the records of the Bureau of Eefugees, Freed- 
men and Abandoned Lands. 



37 

As is natural, tlie clerks in the Adjntaut-General's Office, on the one side, and the 
clerks of the Bureau at the time of its transfer to the War Department, on the other, 
gave testimony directly in coudict. The one party charged that there was confusion of 
records before ; the other maintained that whatever confusion was found occurred after 
the transfer to the War Department, and was due to carelessness and recklessness in 
the removal. 

The court did not deem it necessary to investigate this dispute. 

It is certain that there must necessarily have been confusion, which would arise 
without fault in any one. To transfer to new hands in a very short time and to re- 
move to another building the immense and varied records of so extensive a business 
machinery, so ramified throughout the country, in the hands of so many different 
people, for so many different objects, and covering a period of seven years, as that of 
the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, implies necessarily greater 
or less confusion for a long time after such transfer, even if it had been made by the 
same officials previously engaged upon it and there had been xierfect harmony on the 
subject. 

The evidence before the court certainly does not indicate anything like such an 
amount of confusion and incompleteness as is charged, nor more than was reasonably 
to be expected under the peculiar circumstances of the transfer, and in view of the 
peculiar nature of the business of the Bureau. 

Second letter of the Secretary of War, January .5, 1874. 

The first charge in this letter refers entirely, it seems, to the fact " that funds of the 
United States, duly certified as deposited with the United States Treasurer and in other 
depositories, were not so deposited." Tables for 18B7, 186S, 1869, 1870, and 1871, are 
given to show the discrepancies between the amounts rejiorted by General Balloch and 
the amounts actually in the Treasury of the United States in Washington, D. C, at the 
time stated. The Second Comptroller testified that such discrepancies were the general 
fact in such statements, and that seldom, if ever, were or could be the statements of bal- 
ances made monthly by disbursing officers without some such discrepancies. lu the 
cases in question, he selected at random four of the statements on page 2, part 2, Ex- 
hibit B, (letter of Secretary of War of January 5, 1874,) and after giving them an ex- 
amination, with the aid of General Balloch's clerk, (Terry,) he fouud that they were 
satisfactorily explained. Nothing is shown by the testimony to discredit this state- 
ment or its applicability to all the tabular statements embraced in this letter, or to in- 
dicate any misuse of public money, fraud, or purpose of fraud. 

Investment ofpuhlic vioney in United States bonds. 

The first of these investments was that of a large portion of the "irregular bounty- 
fund," which seems to have first come into the hands of General Balloch in United 
States bonds, but which investment was sanctioned afterward by the act of March 2, 
1867. The second investment was of |334,875 of the " regular bounty-fund " in United 
States bonds, known as currency-sixes. It appears, in the testimony of the Second 
Comptroller, that before investing this amount in bonds. General Howard called on 
him, and informed him that the large amouuts'of money for paying bounties, under the 
act of March 29, 1867, were accumulating in his hand, and asked if the Comptroller 
judged that he was authorized to invest the money in United States bonds pending the 
payments to the rightful parties. The Second Comptroller rendered the opinion that 
General Howard bad the right so to invest this bounty-money, and that there was no law 
to prohibit it. His reasons are given in full in his testimony on the 37th day of the 
session of this court, and are still held by him. On this authority General Howard 
made the investment of !j;334, 875, and a subsequent investment of.|279,37.5, assetforthin 
the letter of the Secretary of War. The amount of interest collected on the investment, 
$279,37.5, was $9,063.22, which was accounted for by General " Balloch " in account- 
current signed by him and approved by General Howard on the 27th of December, 1871, 
heretofore explained. General Balloch, in a letter dated January 3, 1874, makes a 
statement of the amount received from the interest accruing on the investment of 
$334,875=)5il9,446.57 — and an account of the expenditure of that sum contains an item of 
$1,338.50 for re-imburs'ement on account of double i^ayment. This item has already 
been dealt with in the earlier part of this statement of facts. 

The second item in this account, however, remains unexplained to the satisfaction of 
the court. It amounts to $16,652.25, and purports to have been paid for " school- 
houses and asylums." It appears, however, that it is a duplicate or triplicate of a 
voucher on which credit was allowed in March, 1871, and has, therefore, been thrown 
out by the accounting officers of the Treasury, who hold Balloch responsible for the 
amount. He is now endeavoring to settle it. There is a controversy as to how and when 
this voucher was discovered to be a duplicate of one already filed in the Treasury and al- 
lowed : whether first by officials of the War Department or by " General Howard." It 



38 

is clear that (however that question may be decided) "General Howard" did cancel 
his approval, and did report the facts to the War Department and to the Third Audi- 
tor as soon as he discovered it. The amount remains unaccounted for. 

It is to be remarked, however, that this matter forms no part of the charges contained 
in the letters of the " Secretary of War " and accompanying documents, which this court 
was required to investigate. 

OPLNION OF THE COURT. 

First. The court is of opinion that, in the matters referred to it for investigation, 
General O. O. Howard has not, with knowledge and intent, violated any law of Con- 
gress, regulation of the Army, or rule of morals, and that he is " not guilty," upon legal, 
technical, or moral responsibility in any of the offenses charged. 

Second. The court finds that General Howard, when charged by his superiors with a 
great work, arising out of the war, devoted his whole time and all his faculties and en- 
ergies to the execution of that work. In this he employed hundreds of assistants and 
dealt with hundreds of thousands of men. In regard to the expenditure of money, 
it appears that his accounts are closed and settled to the satisfaction of the 
accounting ofScers of the Treasury, whose decisions in such matters are by law 
the highest authority, " final and conclusive upon the executive branch of the 
Government, and subject to revision only by Congress or the proper courts." 

Third. In relation to the investment of certain public moneys in United States bonds, 
while the court does not hold that such investments were justified by existing laws, 
yet in view of the fact that these investments were made only under the opinion and 
advice of the Second Comptroller, the court attaches no blame to General Howard 
therefor. The investment of portions of a similar fund, viz, the " irregular bounty- 
fund," had previously been authorized by express law. 

Fourth. Some questions arising out of the sudden termination of the operations and 
organization of the Freedmen's Bureau yet remain to be settled with those who were 
formerly subordinates and assistants to the Commissioner. Some few erroneous pay- 
ments made by honest subordinates, and some others, made or not made by officers now- 
dead or cashiered for fraud, remain to be adjusted. The adjustment of these matters 
belongs properly to the successors of General Howard in the Bureau ; and in these 
matters, as in all others brought to the notice of the court during thirty-seven days of 
careful and laborious investigation, the court finds that General Oliver O. Howard 
did his whole duty, and believes that he deserves well of his country. 

II. The foregoing report and opinion having been submitted, with the 
proceedihgs, to the President, the following are the orders thereon : 

The findinsc of the court of inquiry is approved. 

U. S. GRANT. 
July 2, 1874. 

III. The court of inquiry of which General William T. Sherman is 
president is hereby dissolved. 

By order of the Secretary of War : 

THOMAS M. VINCEI^T, 

Assistant Adjutant- General. 



I ]sr D E X 



A. 

Page 

ACCOUNTS, relative to legality of altering and re-opening, by heads of Departments 297 

ACCOUNTS-CURRENT of General Balloch for June, July, and August, 1871 440, 441, 442 

ACTS OF CONGRESS : 

Actof , 178il, (organic) 38 

Act of May 8, 1792 38 

Actof March 3, 1809 332 

Actof May 22, 1812 8 

Actof March 3, 1817 35,48,297,504 

Act of May 7, 1822 36 

Actof August 23, 1842 33 

Actof August 4, 1854 33,53,54 

Actof March 3, 1857 38 

Actof July 22,1861 125 

Actof July 17, 1862 8,32,33 

Act of March 2, 1863, (section 28) 102 

Act of March 3, 1863 3, 175 

Act of January — , I8G4, (joint resolution) 125, 502 

Act of J uly 2, 1864, relative to a party to an action being allowed to testify 507 

Actof March 3,1865, (oaths) 79 

Act of June 15, 1866 49, 115, 116, 123, 239, 260, 332 

Act of July 13, 1866 49 

Act of JulV 16, 1866 203 

Act of July 26, 1866 77 

Actof July 28, 1866 125 

Act of March 2, 1867 8, 33, 103, 104, 108, 109, 123, 224, 258, 263, 268, 269, 292, 298, 375, 546 

Joint resolution of March 29, 1867 8, 35, 36, 38-43, 46, 50, 55, (03, first put into practice April 19, 

1867,) 67, 69, 70, 72, 76, 84-87, 91, 94, 99, 102, 110, 119, 125, 136, 147, 148, 168, 173, 181, 182, 186, 187, 200, 
207, 239, 240, 242, 243, 256, 260, 297, 487, (500, 503, 504, definition of, by Second Comptroller, q. v.) 

Actof July 28, 1867 45 

Act of February 12, 1868 299, 332 

Act of March 3, 1868 19, 297 

Act of March 16, 1868 198 

Act of June 25, 1868 23, 24 

Actof July 16,1868 198 

Act of July 25, 1868 ^ 496 

Act of March 3, 1869 332 

Act of July — , 1 869 -209 

Act of July 12, 1870 295, (296, first promulgated by War Department,) 304, 305, 306, 307, 318, 

319 327 328 332 

Actof March 3,1871 ' 294,295,304 

Act of June 10, 1872 16 19 46 293 

ADAMS, GEORGE E., case of ' 367 368 

ADAMS, ISAAC, case of 143 

ADAMS, LIVIAN, case of 141 145 

ADJUTANT-GENERAL AND OFFICE 18, 129, 130, 219, 271, 276, 278,' 401 

(For testimony of officers, clerks, &c., see under respective names and also the several 

charges.) 
E. D. Tnwnsend, Adjutant-General. 

Arrangement between, and Secretary of "War, Treasury, and Attorney-General rela- 
tive to investigation of frauds in bounty-claims '. 339 

Practice of Adjutant-General's office in notifying officers against whom complaints 

have been lodged 379^ 380 

Relative to furnishing Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands with 

information to facilitate identification of claimants 414, 456, 457, 459 

Province of Adjutant-General in investigation of accounts of Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 424 

Letter, October 27, 1868, to General Howard, (Exhibit C.) 414 

Letter, January 17, 1874, to same, relative to interest on currency sixes 436 

Relative to authority from, for (Jeneral Howard to employ two clerks to complete 

records 480 

Letter, September 20, 1873, to General Howard, relative to the check in the "Robbins" 

case, and other matters 484 

Letter, January 3, 1874, to same, relative to furnishing official information from rec- 
ord of the 488 

Letter, April 22, 1873, to same, relative to the "Oliver," " Ponder," and " Robbins" 

cases 493 

Thomas M. Vincent, Assistant Adjutant- General 18, 129, 130, 219, 271, 276, 278, 401 

Letter of, (Exhibit L") , 123 

Letter of, "Augiston" case 128 

Letter of, March 10, 1863, '■ Olivia" case 265 

Letter of, re] ati ve to examining records in Third Auditor's -office 284, 287, 335 

In connection with General Balloch's testimony before the Runkle court-martial. . . 219 

Relative to re-opening General Balloch's accounts in the Treasury and discovery of 
second "Shepherd " voucher 303, 309, 320, 357, 336 

1 H— I 



Page. 

ADJUTANT-GENERAL AND OFFICE Continued. 
Thomas M. Vincent — Continued. 

Letter of, " Nichols" case 338 

Error in letter relative to an item of expenditure 353, 356 

The interview with J. W. Shaw 355, 356, 397, 428 

Relative to olitainlns information upon which charges were based and letters writ- 
ten, in the Ho ward inquiry 375, 376, 377 

Submits n|i(irt to the Adjutant-General in the Ambers and House cases 382 

Correspondence originating in Freedmen's Branch, adopted by 388 

Letter of, to Second Auditor, July 26, 1873, relative to erroneous payments made by 

General Balloch '. 444 

Reply of Second Auditor, July 31, 1673, with copy of his letter to General Balloch on 

the subject 444 

Letter of Second Auditor, November 21, 1873, to, relative to bond transaction of Gen- 
eral Balloch 445 

Cases turned over to, by Bureau, where there were no attorneys of record 461 

Letter, Januaiy 8, 1873, General Howard to, relative to South Carolina school-fund, 

and " retaiued-bounty " fund 481 

Letter, July 14, 1873, to General Howard, relative to furnishing copy of charges, also 

the " irregular-bounty" fund 492 

Recruiting Branch 15 

Colored/ Troops Bnuich 378, 414 

Disbursing ISranch 17 

Records of, compared with those of Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 

Lands 370,371 

Freedmen's Branch. 

In connection with transfer of records Third Auditor's office to 285,286 

Relative to '' Shepherd voucher" 318 

Organization of, and mode of doing business in 338, 395, 396 

The ' ' bounty -register" of the late Bureau 340, 350 

Amount of claims settled in 366, 369, 415 

Erroneous payments made by Captain McMillan, chief disbursing officer 366, 367, 368, 428 

Relative to form in which Treasury accounts should be stated 394 

Number of employes in 399, 400 

Number employed on General Howard's accounts 401 

Major Viacent's duties in connection with 410 

The work of completing records of late Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Aban- 
doned Lands 411,412,413 

Rent paid for building occupied by 424 

ADKINS, JOSEPH, case of 158 

ADVANCES : 

Irregular, by General Balloch to Runkle, (charge 5) 96 

Credits to liunkle by Balloch 186 

General Balloch's testimony relative to above, and his conference with General Vin- 
cent on that subject 219 

General Balloch states he kept no record of the claims Runkle was to pay with the|l,331.03 220 

Made to Runkle was General Balloch's own money, and not public funds 249 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : 

General Vincent iirst called the attention of witness to the matter of 375 

AGENTS : 

Military and civil, charged with disbursement 7, 8, 11, 15, 16, 18, 23, 24-29, 31, 37, 54, 63 

Of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. {See, also, FREEDMEN'S 
BUREAU. ) 

Sub, appointed by Runkle and paid on approval by General Howard 96 

Irregular, payment made through an, by Mr. Beman 157 

Were required, by act March 29, 1867, to hunt up claimants. 186 

Their responsibility 183 

Payments made through, by Major Brown 189 

Amount of money in hands of, when Genei-al Howard relieved Major Brown as chief 

disbursing otticer 191, 201 

All were appointed and discharged by order Secretary of War 201, 213 

Military, (volunteer and regular,) were retained by General Howard 201 

Number of, emi)loyed 213 

Required to make monthly returns of disbursements 221 

General Balloch made all his payments, with a few exceptions, through regularly au- 
thorized 243 

Their duties in connection with other Executive Departments 262 

Salaries of, fiscal year ending June 30, 1872 286 

AGISTON. JOSEPH, case of 127,128 

AKERM AN, A. T., Att(n-ne v-General 307 

ALBANY PENITENTIARY, warden of, Exhibit A* 91 

ALEXANDKU, JOSPU'U, case of 142 

ALLEN, lIEXliV C, ease of 128,129 

ALVORD, Bl!;NJ.V .M I N, I'avmaster-General, testimony of, by judge-advocate 23, 24 

ALVOKD, General, sii pii int'endent of schools 398 

AMBROSE or A:\II •.!<; US, John, case of 347,348,349,382,466,467,475,485,495 

AMES, ADELBEKT, General, and assistant commissioner Bureau, &c 244 

ANTHONY", HE N U Y, erroneous payment 446 

APPEAL, in Court of Claims 23,24 

APPROPRIATION for 1S72, misapplication of, (charge 8.) 
General Balloch's testimony : 

Secretary of the Treasury (McCulloch) designated the heading for this appropria- 
tion..! 228 

Relative to " cash-book," showing sum available January 1, 1871 228 

Deficiency appropriation for year ending June 30, 1871 , |'l27, 000 228 

Has no knowledge of the use made of the $36,314.77 229 

Appropriation anticipated by his borrowing money on bis own responsibility 230 



Page. 

APPROFRIATIOJT for 1872— Continnpd. ^ 
General BaUocKs testimony — Continued. 

Balance ou hand January 1, lt-71 330 

Proposed modes of anticipating tbis 230 

Other funds used meanwhile •. 230 

Adjutant-General's anticipation of appropriation by borrowing of a bank as a 

precedent .' _ 230, 231, 2-15 

General Howard not aware of General Balloch's transaction in this respect ' 231 

How the money was accounted for in March abstract 231. 232 

How the money (§36,374.77) was drawn ' 252 

Sale of lots by Howard University to get money for the fund 257 

As to funds on baud to meet checks on the $36,'314.77 258 

Mr. Harrisons (A. G. O.) testimony: 

Relative to connection of the 130,314.77 with above amount of $73,048.40 279, 280, 281, 2>~'2, 283, 

285, 286, 287, 288, 289 

Discrepancy in amount stated 280 

Analysis C 285, 286 

How the tabulated list was made up 286, 287, 288, 289 

Mr. Brodhcad's testimony : 

The " Tupper" voucher 294 

The ' ' Tayl'jr ' ' voucher 294 

The ''appropriation account'' of the Second Auditor 294 

As to act of June 30, 1872, being a permanent appropriation 297 

The otiioe of Commissioner abolished by this act 297 

But all laws respecting bounties. Sec, continued in force 297 

R. W. Taylcr's (First Comptroller) testimony; 

The acts of July 12, 1870, and February' 12, 1868 304 

The appi opriations under act March 3, 1871 304 

The authority of the First Comptroller and Secretary of "War as regards supervision 

of expenditures under appropriations '. 304 

As to powers of First Comptroller where money has been misapplied from one ap- 
propriation to another 305 306 

The act of July 12, 1870, went into effect at date relative to collecting, drilling, &c., 

volunteeis 30fi 

The Secretary of War is to see that the above act Is complied with 307 

When the act of July 12, 1870, went into effect 307 

The Attorney-General's opinion on the act of July 27, 1870 307 

After accounts have been settled and closed in Treasury, Secretary of War can no 

longer exercise supervision 3O3 

But the act of March 30, 1868, allows a re-examination, under certain circumstances, 

yet the decision of the Second Comptroller is final 308 

Mr. CatddwelVs testimony, (recalled by defense :) 

Relative to the misappropriation of introducing the correspondence between the 
War Department and Treasury Department, in 1874, relative to re-opening Gen- 
eral Balloch's accounts 326-337 

Second Comptroller refuses to take action recommended by Secretary of War.!!".'. 334 335 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : ' 

In connection witli the charge of confusion of records 353-356 

General Vincent's error in his letter to General Townsend explained 353 

Explains the tabular statements, A to E . 354 355 

Mr. Shaw's connection with the matter ...'.".'.'.".'..'.'.".'" ' 355 

How the matter of, first came up in Adjutant-General's office .... .!.....".!'.'.'.'.'.'"..'. 375 
Analyzation of statement E', showing how much of, was available for expenses 

prior to J nne 30, 1871 . 3gg 337 

The Taylor and Tupper vouchers !...!.!...!!'....!!'.!!!. '395 

Major Vincent's testimony : 

Explains the amount"stated under this charge, |36,314.77, in connection with amount 

$73 048.40, bounty-money, (charge 8) 4O7 

What led to the preparation of statements covering this charge .'.........".""." 408 

Letter of Mr. J. W. Shaw in this connection '[ 409 

Relative to deduction of $25,000 from the item mentioned in this charge ...... ..... 416 

The aniount here charged as misapplied is now, in his view, a deficiency for which 

the late Bureau is responsible 416 417 

But the question rests with the accounting officers of the Treasury . ' 417 

The re-imbursement of the amount was known by the War Department prior to 

September 23, 1873 f ^ 4^7 

Defines the meaning of his letter, above date, as regards the ''recovery '"of the 

amount _ •' ,, « 

As to examining into Mr. Shaw's statement relative' tothe $40,000.'.'.'. '.'. 417 

And the witness's connection with the Hon. Mr. Wood's action in the House in call- 
ing for papers A-ia 

. .o^^r^^^^, *? securing an, to wind up tlie Bureau. '(See 'FREEbMEN'SBTTREAlJ) 215 216 

Sf^^iy .?' '"IV,®^"^ °* Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands. (See FRF.EDMEN'S 
BUREAU AND RECORDS.) 

ARGUMENT, final, of counsel for accused 529-545 

Final, of judge-advocate 546-592 

. T.T^ . ,^„ . , (^^' «^«o. COURT OF 'iNQuiRY.) 

ARKANSAS CLAIMANTS, THE ^H^J-x^,x., 

ARMSTRONG, W. B., captain and disbursing 'officer'.' .'.'.";.'; .' ' " " ' 146 

ARMY REGULATIONS, &c., paragraph 997 . otfi 

39thArticleof War ........... ^ o., 

74 th Article of War lif 

92d Article of War r^, 

ARTICLES OF WAR. (&e ARMY.) 

ATTORNEY-GENERAL 128_i43 170 ,04 

Opinion on act July 12, 1870 .."..^'.['."'. 307 332 344 

Arrangement made with, relative to investigation of bounty-frauds .'..'.. '.". ' '339 

Opinion of, relative to the charge of discrepancy (q. v.) of stated monthly balances 406 



ATTORXEYS FEES. (See FEES RETAINED.) *°^' 
AUDITOR, FIRST, (for testimony of, and employes of his office, see names.) 

AUDITOR, SECOND, (for testimony of, and eiuploy6s of liis office, see under names) 16, 37, 49, 77, 

78, 97, 105, 107, 108, 109, -^42, 24G, 258, 262, 266, 271, 292, 293 

Manner of stating General Howard's account 162-170 

Opinion of, January 10, 1874 171 

Letter, April 10, 1^73, to Secretary of War : 179,185 

Conference with Solicitor-General and Secretary of War 179 

Conference -with Second Comptroller as to charging the disbursing otHcer with errone- 
ous payments 185 

Letter to Captain McMillan as to erroneous payment in the P. J. Brown case 367 

Credit to General Howard for the $209.96 '. 383, 391 

Decided as to name of Bureau officer money should be taken up in 394 

Conespondence with Secretarv of War relative to settlement by, of claims of colored 

soldiers in connection with House bill 1359 abolishing the Bureau 420, 421 

Letter September 30, 1871, to Secretary Treasury relative to the S250,000-bond transaction 439 

Account scurrHnt, General Balloch, for June, July, and August, 1871 440, 441, 442 

Letter from Major Vincent, July 26, 1873, and reply of, with copy of letter of, to General 

Balloch in the matter of erroneous payments 444 

Letter, November 21, 1873, to General Vincent relative to erroneous payments by, and 

" bond transaction " of, (General Balloch 445 

Copy of General Balloch's statement of erroneous payments made from May 1, 1867, to 

October 10, 1871 '. 446 

Letter General Balloch, October 11, 1871, to, accounting for the $250,000-bond transaction 446 
Relative to General Howard paying over the money in the Ambrose and Robbin cases 

to the 467 

Mode of disposing of certifioates received from, in Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and 

Abandoned Lands 469 

Letter of General Howard, April 2?, 1874, transmitting accounts covering balance "ir- 
regular-bounty fund " 527 

AUDITOR, THIRD: 

For testimony of, and employfis of his office, see under names . .49, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 263, 269, 271 

278, 294, 295 

Opinion of, in his letter of January 10, 1874 171 

Certificate of, of Maior Brown's settlement 196 

Relative to double voucher for S16,652.25, (bill of A. R, Shepherd & Bro.) 336 

Audits the vouchers covering the expenditure of interest on the |300,000 invested in 

l>onds 302, 303 

Above account re-opened 303 

Correspondence with, relati^ e to above 309-318, 331-334 

When act July 12, 1870, was first enforced in 319 

Certificate of non-iiulebtedness to General Balloch given by 329 

Connection of with General Balloch's accounts covering January 1 to July 31, 1871 329 

Indorsements, March 21, 1874, relative to the S250,000-bond transaction 403 

Letter, February 12, 1874, to General Howard, same subject 438 

AUGUSTA (Ga.) HIGH SCHOOL 419,422 

AUGUSTINE, JOSE PH, case of 127, 128 

AUSTIN, WILLIAM, case of 158,358 

B. 

BABBITT, (or BOBBINS,) JAMES, case of. (See ROBBINS.) 

B A B T, A . .T. , wi tu ess 127 

BAIRD, ABSALOM, general and commissioner, &c 133,211 

BA K ER, captain police, Norfolk, Va 262 

BALANCES, see under respective charges. 

BALLOCH. G. W., brevet briijadier-geucral, and chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, 

Freedmen and AliandoiKMl Lands 13, 20, 21, 22, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 125-133, 

139. 141, 145, 146, 147, l.jO, 151, 156-171, 173, 175, 176, 182-185, (186, recognized as disbursing officer by 
Second Auditor : 193, double payment made by,) 197, 213, 268-270, 272-276, 284, 290, 291, 292, 293, 298, 
300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 320, 326, 328, 329, 336, 347, 348, 352, 356, 360, 362, 363, 364, 
372. 394, 402-406, 415, 42.5, 426, 428, 436-450, 4.57, 4.59-470, 472-476, 480, 483, 489-491, 497, 499, 504, 512-514. 

Account-current, bounty, &c., June, July, and August, 1871 440, 441, 442 

Letter of Second Auditor, October 6, 1871, to, relative to bond transaction 444 

Statement of bounty cl.airaants erroneously paid, whose claims were twice paid, from 

May 1. 1867, to October 10, 1871, furnished Second Auditor by 446 

Letter of. Oitober 11, 1871, to Second Auditor, showing cost, interest collected and ex- 
pended in the S2.")0,ii00-bond transaction 446 

Statement showing money returned by, to Third Auditor's Office in " irregular-bounty 

fund " cases 474 

Copy indorsed. Second Comptroller, December 31, 1873, explaining discrepancies (q.v.) 

in amounts on deposit in Treasury, by 486 

Testimonv "f, by jndge-advocaie 60-124 

Recalled liy j udge-ad vocate 21 8-264 

Crosscxniuiijfil by defense 238-255 

Called by delen.se 429-433 

BARRETT, F. H., Captain, disbursing officer, Provost-Marshal-General's Office 325 

BARRETT, PRESTON, case of 178 

BASCOM, W. F., Howard University 494 

BEAM, HENRY D 3 

BECK W ITH, United States attorney, New Orleans, La 149 

BELL. GEORGE, major. Commissary Subsistanco, United States Army 458 

BELL, GUS.. erroueo'us payment to 446 

BEMAN, E. C, agent. Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 94, 116, 117, 152, 220, 267 

Testimcmy of by jiulgead vocate 145-152 

Recalled by judge-advocate 154-157 

Cross-examined by defense 148, 157 



BENfiT S. v., Ma1or, acting Chief of Ordnance, testimony of, by judge-advocate 30-34 

BEREA 'college, Ky ' tt, 

BESS, A ARON, case ot ^^^ 

BIOKFORD, J.E., agent, without salary »- 

BLAIR, MARIA, case of °4. ^", -pb 

BLUE, DAVID S., Fieedmen's Bureau ---■ ^^f 

BONDING OFFICERS AND AGBXTS - 7,10,18,24,28,73 

Of Bureau of Refugees, Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands, agents of '7 

Beman's bond ^|^ 

Brown's bond q^;! 

General Balloch gave none ;;f^ 

Mandeville's bond ^^'"T^q 

French's (0. C.) bond v"^ -.V-ii o7.< 

Disbursing officers in Provost-Marshal-General's Ofnce were not bonded J^4 

BONDS, UNITED STATES, investment of |250,000 in, and misapplying and misusing the 
interest (|12,559.31) thereon : 

CHARGE 6. 
General Bulloch's testimony : 

That General Howard directed said investment - ^-:p 

And that he (General Balloch) made it in his capacity as chief disbursing officer. . . 22b 

Mr. Moodey's testimouy : 

General Vincent first called the attention of witness to the matter ot ->'-J 

Mr. CauldwelVs testimony : 

Relative to vouchers pertaining to account-current - - 4U- 

Third Auditor's indorsement, March 21, 1874, on account-current of refugees and 

freedmen's fund, accounting for the interest-money of these 403 

General Howard has accounted for so much as came into his hands •103 

Reasons why General Howard was not notified by the Treasury officials of the 

non-rendition of vouchers by General Balloch covering the interest-money 404 

Mr. Cauldwell recalled : , , , ^ i t. n i 

Account-current and vouchers for part of the sum expended by General Balloon 

were filed in Third Auditor's Office thi.s day, April 27, 1b74 426 

But this account has not yet been audited *'^^ 

General Balloch' s tesiimoii\ : 

No account was rendered to the Treasury before April 27, 1874, but one was ren- 

dered General Howard October 12, 1871 - -- '*^^ 

Did not know tliat he was reciuired to account for this money to the Treasury be- 
fore he was so informed by letter of the Secretary of the Treasury, March 31, 1874. 433 

Judge-advocate submits documents showing the history of this transaction 438-44b 

J. A.Sladen's (Fourteenth Infautrv, A. D. C.,) testimony : 

Letter of Second Comptroller of February 9, 1874, to General Howard relative to 

legality of investment of funds in 'IS'?, 488 

Investment of §334,875 in, misapplying and misusing the interest (§19,446.57) thereon : 

CHARGE 61. 

General Ballocli's testimouy : 

That General Howard directed said investment jjP 

That he (Balloch) made it iu his capacity as chief disbursing officer 226 

What became of the account made out for the interest 226 

Relative to the Thirtl Auditor's disallowing a voucher for $16,652.25, part of the in- 
terest 226,2.53 

Above sum was used for Howard University ^^ '> ^"-^2 

General Howard's connection with that expenditure 234, 235 

Don't know how to account for the 816,652.25 the Third Auditor disallowed 259 

ThomaH M. Shepherd's (of A. R. Shepherd & Co.) te.stimony : 

As to contract for heating Clark Hall, Howard University, $16,652.25 290 

The amount was paid at diftVi-ent times 290, 231 

The vouchers were rendered to General Balloch.. 291 

Don't remember what funds vouchers were paid in 292 

General Howard's connection with that transaction 292 

Andre^v CatildweU's testimonv : 

The voucher for the $16',652.25, when rendered to the Treasury, (Exhibit E«) 301 

Is approved by General Howard - J^j- 

And the abstract accompanied the voucher 301 

The second voucher for the $16,652.25, Exhibit ¥=, rendered January 2, 1874 301 

Voucher also approved by General Howard, but there was no abstract 301 

Exhibits, N6 to V6 '. 301 

These vouchers were allowed 30-~ 

Re-opening of the accounts of General Balloch — 303 

Relative to the official coriespoudence regarding the second voucher for Shepherd's 

bill, Mr. Moodey's copying the records 308, 309 

General Howard's letter to Third Auditor, February 12, 1874, (Exhibit V^) 310 

Third Auditor in reply to above, same date, (Exhibit W^) 310 

S. IF. Tavlcr's (First Comptroller) testimony : 

Letter Secretary of War, February 14, 1874, to Secretary of Treasury, relative to the 

interest on the bonds 3J2 

Reply of Third Auditor to letter of Secretary of War, February 14, 1874 312 

General Howard's letter, February 18, 1874, to Third Auditor relative to second 

voucher in Shepherd's bill 313 

Letter of Third Auditor in reply to above, February 24, 1874 313 

Letter of Third Auditor to Balloch, February 24, 1874, same subject 314 

Reply of February 26, 1874, of General Balloch to above ■ - ■ 31-1 

Letter Secretary of War, February 27, 1874, to Secretary of the Treasury on same 

subject o^^'oIS 

Indorsements on same subject 316, ul7 

The interest taken by the Adjutant General's Office in the matter of, and the en- 
forcement of the act of July'l2, 1870 318,319 



BONDS, UNITED STATES— Continued. *^^' 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : 

In connection -with tbe charge of confusion of records, (q.v.) 356-358 

The " Shepherd voucher,'' liow discovered 350-388 

General Balloch's general statement of December 29, 1873, first called attention to. . 390, 391 

The records of the Bureau show nothing about this tran.saction 393 

Mr. CauUhvcU\i-i-:x\\(n\: 

General Howard rendered an account for a large portion of the interest 402 

(ieneral Balloch rendered no account for the portion of interest disbur.sed by him.. 402 

Relative to the amount of profits made by the investment and their disbursement. 402 

General Balloch's testimony : 

The voucher for Ji)t;,652.25, thrown out by the Treasury, has not yet been replaced, 

but every etfort is being made by witness to account i^r the money 433 

Judge. advocate su1)mit8 documents covei'ing the history of this transaction 435-438 

Mr. Lamech DuvalVs testimony : 

His connection with Mr. Shaw 463 

Lieutenant J. A. Sladen's testimony : 

Letter of Second Comptroller,' February 9, 1874, relative to investment of funds in . . 487, 488 

In the matter of the '■ Shepherd voucher," letter of General Howard to Secretary of 

War, February 17, 1874, relative to above voucher, admitted 489 

J. M. Brodkead's (Second Comptroller) testimony : 

As to legality of the investment ."SOO 

The amount invested was no part of the appropriations for the Bureau 504 

The be.'iring of the act of 1846, and June 14, 1866, on this subject 504, 505 

Especially as to the "Shepherd " voucher 539, 540 

BOUNTY, LOCAL, General Balloch paid some 85 

"Work of the Bureau in connection with payment <,f, General Whittlesey's testimony 

relative to 207, 208 

Eetnrned to Bureau, and Treasury not notified 97 

Exiienses in collecting, paying, &c., between Julv 1, 1871, and June 30, 1872 286 

BOUNTY KEGISTER......'. ' 97 

BOUNTY-FUND, irregular or retained, of about,! 121,000. Failure to properly account for. 
Charge 7 : 

General Balloch's testimony : 

Geni'ral statement made by 103, 104 

The normal school in Washington 104 

General Butler's order No. 90, of 1864... 104 

The total amount received, paid ont, and turned over by him 105 

Withdraws the vouchers filed in the Treasury 106 

Authority for so doing 107 

"*-'^s to General Howard's knowledge of last section act of March 2, 1867 108 

- There are no " I'etainod vouchers " for this fund 109 

And none are required, the "balance " only having to be accounted for 109 

As to the respon.sibility of the witness and General Howard relative to 110 

Confers with General Howard relative to the investment of tbe 110 

Vouchers cannot be found Ill, 114, 115 

Relative to Mrs. Spihnan Ill 

How he accounted for the "balance " of the 113 

Had a private memorandum relative to, and a record-book, which was lost 114 

Relative to the act of .Tune 15, 1866, and the construction put on the same by witness 

Mr. Vinson, of the Treasury Department 115, 123 

No rules were prescribed by (leneral Howard under above-named act, as it did not 

apply to 116 

The rotained-bnunty fund of tbe department of Virginia and North Carolina 122 

There was no law requiring rendering any account for 123 

Act of June 1.5. 1866, does not apply to..." 123 

Cannot swear that payments under, were always made to rightful claimants 123 

Explanation respecting missing vouchers 124 

Relative to contents of the "register" of the 218 

Its investment 224 

$84,000 of the, were received in United States bonds 225 

•The accrued interest thereon was used by witness 225 

Congress investigated this matter of the 225 

Never was cilleil to account for, except to General Howard 225 

Number of claims inaile under • 249 

The " recoril-book "in court a correct copy of the lo.st book 249 

General Howard's connection with freedmen in general, (by defense) 251 

Such funds are not on books of the Treasury, they not being apijropriations by 

Congress 252 

Took ]>ossession of the fund, and General Howard did not call for it before October 

11,1871 258 

Witness's traveling exi)en,ses to Richmond charged to 258 

General Ilow.nd ))]aiiil tlie, in tlie Treasury, and is subsequently directed to turn 

it over t()Cai)tain .McMillan 259 

('ould leiidir a sworn account of the, if he had the record-l)ook the court possesses. 259 

Do not know tli(( amount of the, on March 2, 1867, but could arrive at it 263 

Accounts for mutilation of the book ,264 

Hon. E. B. French'.^ testimony : 

Made up his niinil flic Sceonil Auditor had nothing to do with, under act March 2, 1867 268 
Remembers ticneral I'.aUoch's bringing in vouchers and subsequently withdrawing 

them 268,269 

These accounts properly belong to tbe Third Auditor 269 

Regards this fund as a " trust " 270 

J. M. Krodhcad's testimony : 

The fund was in (ieneral Howard's custody 292 

Vouchers were filed for, and witness said they should not be, it being a trust 293 

Ai)plication of act of March 2, 1807, to Commissioner, his construction of 293 



BOITNTTFTJND— Continnecl . 

J. M. Brodhead's tes< imonv— Continued. 

As to General Howard's successor under act of June 10,1872 293 

Relative to appropriations under tbis act 297 

The "Tapper voucher 294 

The act of March 2, 1871, in connection with the act of June 15, 1866 295 

The E. L. Taylor voucher 294 

The act of Jiily 12, 1870, went into efifect December, 1871 295, 296 

No injury by this delay 296 

Why the vouchers were credited to General Balloch 298 

Should only account for balance of the fund and turn it over to his successor 298 

It would have been proper to file vouchers for 298, 299 

The act of February 12, 1868 299 

The Secretary of the Treasury, not the Secretary of War, is the judge as to the use 

made of the 299 

A mere statement of balance would have satisfied the Treasury 300 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : 

How the matter of. first came up in the Ajutant-General's Office 375 

Correspondence with General Howard relative to 390 

When the "irrea:ular retained-bounty fund" book was obtained by the Adjutant- 
General's Office 390 

Major Vincent's testimony : 

Has had no applications from claimants relative to 413 

General BallocKs testimony : 

Produces an account-current concerning this fund, which he puts in evidence under 

oath, (Exhibit H') 429 

Rendered tbis account to General Howard but not to the Treasury 431 

The chief of one of the divisions. Second Auditor's Office, advised him to withdraw 

the vouchers be liad tendered In the 432 

Explains clerical error in the statement of amount received from Captain James .. 432 

Mr. John T. Vinson's testimony for defense : 

Had charge of the settlement of accounts, Tliird Auditor's Office, and concluded 
that there was no law warranting the settlement by the Third Auditor of the ac- 
counts of this fund 447-450 

General Balloch tiled vouchers regularly and was finally notified to cease doing so. . 447-450 

The accounts were regular 448-450 

Mr. Andrew Ooates's testimony, (late agent Bureau Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 
Lands :) 
Paid between four hundred and five hundred cases under this fund, and kept record 

of payments 461,462 

Mode of paying claimants — -- 462 

Seth A. Terry's testimony, (late of Bureau Refugees, Freedmenand Abandoned Lands:) 

Mode of accounting for and disbursing this fund by General Balloch 464, 465 

Was kept in National Bank of the Republic, Washington, D. C 473 

John T. Vinson's testimony, (recalled :) 

Statement from records of Third Auditor's Office, showing to G. W. Balloch returned 

money account for 474 

J. A. Sladeii's testimony, (lieutenant Fourteenth Infantrj-, aid-de-camp :) 

Relative to correspondence between Generals Howard and Vincent in the matter of. 480, 481 
Letters of General Howard January 8 and 27, 1873, to United States Treasurer, turn- 
ing in balance of $1,628.59 of the 482 

The amount was credited to Captain McMillan, who receipted for the same 4S3 

Letter from Adjutant-General's Office, (General Vincent,) July 14, 1873, to General 

Howard relative to the matter of the 492 

Identifies letters between General Howard, the Secretary of the Treasury, and Cap- 
tain McMillan, relative to transfer of balance to the last-named officer, of the 545, 546 

BOUNTY-MONEY, misappropriation of charge S. 

Mr. Cauldwell, 'Ihird Auditor's Office, testimony of: 

States disbursements and balances on hand in the months of Januarv, February, 

March, May, June, and July, 1871 272,273 

General Howard approves the abstracts 272, 273 

General Balloch certifies to correctness of abstract 273, 274 

The " Wager" payment 274 

The gas-bill for Bureau and hospital 275 

The ' stationery bill" 275,276 

" Coon's salary" 276 

Mr. Moodey and Mr. Harrison made a tabular statement of vouchers under 278 

Identities Exhibits G* to M^ inclusive 300 

General Howard approved the above vouchers 304 

William H. Harriaon's testimony, (Adjutant-General's Office :) 

He made out the tabular statement referred to by Mr. Cauldwell 278 

Mr. Muzzey and Mr. Frey a.ssisted 281 

The list (Exhibit D«) is correct 279 

The amount stated is not exactly correct 279 

The connection of the $36,314.77 'with the $73,043.40 . . . 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289 
His instructions from (General Vincent relative to his examination of records Third 

Auditor's Office 284, 285 

Where the papers were kept 285 

AnalvsiaC 285,286 

Howthe tabulated li.st was made up 286,287,288,289 

Mr. Brodhead's testimony : 

Relative to legality of heads of Departments re-opening accounts 297 

R. TV. Tayler's testimony, (First ComproUer :) 

The acts of July 12, 1870, and February 12,1868 304 

Appropriations under act March 3, 1871 - 304 

Supervisory powers of First Comptroller and Secretary of War in expenditures 

under appropriations 304, 307, 308 

{See, also, under APPROPRIATION.) 



Page. 
BOUNTY MONET Continued. 

Mr. OauldweU, Third Auditor's Office, recalled by defense : 

Relative to the war-warrant for |127,000 in favor of Balloch 326 

Act July 12, 1870, was not iu force in Third Auditor's Office wlien the accounts for 

January, ITebruary, and March, 1871 , were settled 327 

Accounts were frequently rendered to the Third Auditor long after they had been 

paid -■ 327 

It made no particular difference whether accounts had been paid before the month 

in which tlie vouchers had been filed, provided the vouchers were correct 328 

General Balloch has received the usual certificate of acquittance from Third Audi- 
tor in these accounts 328, 329 

Has the accounts and voiichers with him 329 

The original voucher for the |l,338.5fi accompanied General Balloch's supplemen- 
tary account for October 329 

The correspondence between the Secretary of War and Treasury officials, relative 
to the re-opening of General Balloch's accounts, for money misapplied from appro- 
priation for year ending June 30, 1872 331-337 

Mr. Moodey\s testimony : 

In connection with the charge of confusion of records, iq. v) 353-356 

General Vincents error in his letter explained 3.53 

Mr. Shaw's interview with General Vincent 355 

The tabular statemeute A to E explained 354, 355 

Its preparation - 397 

Analysis of statement F, to show how much of the receipts of year ending June 

30, 1872, was available for expenses prior to June 30, 1871 386, 387 

How the tabular statement was made up 394 

The discovery of the Tapper voucher 395 

The #16,800.88 were paid to E. L. L. Taylor and not to Tupper 395 

Mr. Shaw's written statement 397, 398 

John M. iiims's testimony : 

No accounts or vouclhers for expenses of Bureau, or for schools .and asylums, were 
rendered by General Howard, or any of his disbursing officers, for the period 

specified in this charge 404 

Major Vincent's testimony: 

Explains the amount stated in this charge, $73,048.40, in its connection with the 

$36,314.77 in charge 8 407 

Why the vouchers covering this expenditure are deemed erroneous 408 

Explains the item "amount due officers," &c.. in statement of disbursements, 

(page 14, B, Ex. Doc. 10) 408 

What led to the preparation of the?e statements 408 

Authority under which it was prepared 410 

Letter of Mr. J. W. Shaw in this connection 409 

Relative to deducting ^25.000 from amount stated in this charge 416 

Knew of the re-imbursement of the amount prior to date of his letter of September 

23,1873 417 

As to the meaning of the word " recover " in above-mentioned letter 417 

As to examining into Mr. Shaw's statement 417 

As to the witness's connection with the action of the Hon. Mr. Wood in the House, 

in asking for the jjapers 418 

BOYNTON, Kev.C.B., president Howard Uuivensitv 254 

BREWER, General, (Exhibit P') 87 

BRICE, B. W., (late Paymaster-General, United States Army,) trustee Freedman's Bank .. 88 

BRIGGS, Louisa, case of 116, 161,361,369,384,391 

BRISTO W, B. H., Solicitor-General 179 

(See, also, JUSTICE, DEPARTMENT OF.) 
BRODHEAD, J. M., Second Comptroller, testimony of: 

By j uilgo-advocate 34-48 

Recalled by iudge-advocate 292-300 

Recalled by defense 498, 499 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate 499-505 

Cross-examined by defen.se 38, 42, 45, 295, 296 

Whore officially mentioned. (See COMPTROLLER, SECOND.) 

BROWN ALEX ANDER, " Fidler " case 90 

BROWN, CALVIN, clerk Freedmeu's Bureau 409 

BROWN, CHARLES, erroneous payment 446 

BROWN, JEROME, case of ' 158 

BROWN, J. M., ma jor and disbursing officer 20, 41, 57, 66, 86, 87, 99, 1.56, 157, 158, 162, 163, 166 

425, 455, 464, 483, 484, 490, 493, 495, 496, 511 

" Retainod-bounty fund " 110 

The i}673.24 122 

Auditing liis accounts 184 

Recognized as disbursing officer by Second Auditor. 186, 199 

Ceases to be recognized as disbur.sing officer by Second Auditor 199 

His authority to sign Treasury certificates . . '. 213, 248, 254, 259, 284, 320, 336 

His n])oits I'di' Fi-l)iiiary and March, 1872, in connection with the Walker case 341, 342 

Rehiliiig to f mills turned over by 346,371,379 

Was not notiliod vvluii checks were returned 380,381,382,430 

Ti'nd(*rs Captain McMillan the amount due in the Robbins case 382, 386, 393 

Letter, July 27, 1865 413 

General Howard pays the money in the Ambrose and Robbins cases to 467 

Testimony of, by jndge-advocate 188-196 

Recalled by defense 434, 435 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate 435 

CrossexM mi neil liy 'defense H)4, 19.5, 196, 434 

BROWN, ()ULAX!»( ), Colonel, assistant commissioner Freedmen's Bureau 103, 432, 464, 475 

BROWN, W. J., S(ig<'ant, case of, (Exhibit R) 47,131,132 

BRYAN, L. J., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 374 



BUEBRIDGE, REASON, case of ■■■--- 43 

BURBRIDGE,S.G., General 96,132,139,153,181 

BUREA l^ R., F. & A. L. {See FREEDMEN'S BTTREAIT.) 

BXJRKHARDT. NATHAN, minor child of Jackson Dickey 391 

BURKHOLDER, cashier ami agent, (Exhibit P^) 87 

BURSE, (or PURSE,) re-irubursemeiit case 437, 446 

BUTLER, B. F., Maj. Gen., his order No. 90, of 1864 96, 103, 105, 224 

BUTLER, JOHN, case of 131 

BUTTRICK, GEORGE, witness 127 

C. 

CALSTON, MARTHA, widow of Peter, case of 158 

CAMP NELSON (Ky.) SCHOOL 419,422 

CARTER, JAMES B., clerk Adiutant-General's Office 245 

CASH-BOOK, Freeduien's Branch, Adjutant-General's Office 286 

CASHIERS OF BANKS as disbursing agents 74, 82, 84, 157 

(See. also, FREEDMAN'S BANK and AGENTS.) 

C AULDWELL, ANDREW, Third Auditor's Offifie--, — r--?;^. --^ , 278 

Testimony of, by.judge-advocate y^. ..\.^..,^< 270-278 

Recalled by iudge-advocato y^ 300-304, 402-i04, 426 

Cross-examined l.y defense C_„,„.,.-=^ 278, 326-338, 402-404 

t Cross-examined by judge-advocate 329, 330, 337 

CERTIFICATES, General Howard's authority to Major Brown to sign, for him 213 

(See, alio, AUDITOR, SECOND, and iinder respective charges.) , 

CHARGES, letter of Adjutant General's Office, (Vincent,) to General Howard, relating to . . 492 
Made by Secretary of War against General Howard, as set forth in Ex. Doc. 10, and Ex. 
Doc. io, 2, H. R.,'Fortv-thir(T Congress : 
For charge, See DEFRAUDING CLAIMANTS. — 
For charge 1-1, See VOUCHERS, FALSER &C. 
For charge 1-2, See DEFICIENCY. 
For charge 1-3, See FEES RETAINED, *&C. 
For charge 2, See MANDEVILLB, ST. C. — 
For charge 3, &e FRENCH, O. C. 
For charge 4, See RUNKLE, B. P.— 
For charge 5, See ADVANCES. ' 
For charge 6 and 6, 1, See BONDS. - 
For charge 7, See BOUNTY FUND, &C. 
For charge 8, See APPROPRIATION, &C. -<• 
For charge 8, See BOUNTY-MONEY. 
Ex. Doc. 10, 2, Sc« DISCREPANCY. ^^ 
Confusion of records. See RECORDS. 

CHATTANOOGA NORMAL SCHOOL 419-422 

CHECKS in payment of bounties 133-139,140,141,242 

CHERRY, J. H., captain Fifty-flfth United States Colored Troops 359 

CHESTERFIELD (S.C.) SCHOOL 419-422 

CHIPMAN, HOSMER & CO., attorneys 249 

CIRCULARS. (See under names of respective Departments issuing the same.) 
CIVIL AGENTS. (See AGENTS.) 

CLAIM- AGENTS, combination of, to deft'aud the Government. 262 

The Bureau of Refugees, Frcedmen and Abandoned Lands acting as, for claimants 459 

CLAIMANTS. (See under respective charges.) 

CLAIMS for commutation of rations for prisoners of war collected by Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmeu and Abandoned Lands 458 

CLERKS. (See AGENTS.) 

COATES, ANDREW, brevet major Veteran Reserve Corps, agent Bureau of Refugees, 

Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 84, 131, 220, 221, 348, 512 

Testimony of, for defense 461-462 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate 461-462 

COBB, CLINTON L., member of Congress 419 

COBURN. JOHN, Hon., chairman, &c. (See, also, REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OF).. 577 

COCHRAN. ALBERT E., recorder 30,426 

COLE, , clerk Adjutant-General's Office 374 

COLLINS, CHARLES; his case 119,120,161,365,384 

COMBINATION of claim-agents to defraud the Government 262 

COMMISSIONER BUREAU OP REFUGEES, FREEDMEN AND ABANDONED 

LANDS. (jSee HOWARD ; also under respective charges.) 
COMMISSIONS, MILITARY. By what tenure held by late officers retained in Bureau of 

Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Land.^ 213 

COMPLAINTS, the practice of the Adjutant-General's Office in the matter of notifying 

officers against whom, have been made 379, 380 

COMPTROLLER, FIRST 36 

(For testimony of, and employes of his office, see under respective names.) 

His construction of act of July 12, 1870 304, 305 

COMPTROLLER, SECOND 9,43,48,49,63,91 

Certificates payable by 99 

(For testimony of, and employes of his office, see under respective names. ) 

Decision relative to retained-bounty fund 116, 184,224,268,545 

Relative to his action in having the disbursing accounts of the Bureau stated in General 

Howard's name 162-170 

Opinion of, by his letter of January 16, 1874, to Secretary of Treasury, "on the 174 cases" 172, 173 

Deci.sion of, relative to the re-imbursement for double payments of bounties 184 

Whi;ther disbursing officers are to be charged with erroneous payments made by them. 185 

No longer recognizes General Balloch as disbursing officer 199 

Consultation held with, by General Balloch as to the meaning of so much of resolution 
of March 29, 1867, as regards the personal responsibility for disbursements, &c., of 
General Howard as Commissioner 240 



10 

COMPTROLLER, SECOKD— Continued. *^*' 
Approves tlie auditinf;: by the Third Auditor of the vouchers covering expenditure of 

interest on the $,'{00,000 invested in United States bonds 303 

Powers of, in cases where appropriations have been misapplied, to pass vouchers 305, 306 

Correspondence with War Department relative to re-opening General Balloch's ac- 
counts 309-318, 331-334 

Mr. Terry explains the discrepancies in balances on monthly return to 466, 467 

Approval by, of General Balloch's accounts of disbursement of "irregular-bounty fund " 475 
Letter, February 4, 1874, to General Howard, transuiittinp copy of indorsement of Sec- 
ond Comptroller of December 31, 1873, in the matter of discrepancies in General Bal- 
loch's monthly statements of balances 486 

Letter February 9, 1874, to General Howard, relative to opinion of, on bond transaction. 487 

COMSTOCK, C. B.", maior Engineers 27 

CONGRESS, ACTS OF. (See ACTS.) 

COONS, J. B., agent Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 118, 119, 276, 365 

COOK, J. H., chief clerk Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 392 

Testiinouj' of, for defense 450-455 

Cross-examined bv judge-advocate 451, 45sJ, 454 

COURT OF CLAIM'S 23,24,213 

COURT OF INQUIRY, points raised and discussed by the ofBcers of the, and the orders 
of the, thereon : 

Preliminary proceedings 1-4 

Argumentof judge-advocate relative to 99-102 

The court decides to allow one of the counsel of the accused to object 105 

Relative to right of objection 112, 113 

As to mode of questioning adopted by judge-advocate 121 

The judge-advocate's argument in favor of summoning defrauded claimants in the " 174 

cases " , 17(1-174 

Counsel 6f accused in reply thereto 174-177 

Court decides not to summon these parties 178 

Mr. J. B. Sheridan sworn as recorder 198 

Court decides to summon no witnesses in the Olivia case 266 

Remarks of counsel of accused in the St. Clair Mandeville case decided not to be consid- 
ered evidence, but spread on record 267 

Judge-advocate on the "misapplication" of |73, 048.40 and 136,314.47 bounty, (charges 8 

and 8) 272,276,277 

Counsel of accused in reply to above 277 

President of the court in reply to above 277 

Judge-advocate and counsel for accused in the matter of discrediting or explaining the 

testimony of the Second Comptroller by the testimony of the First Comptroller 306 

Objection of counsel of accused to above proceedings 306 

Objection of counsel of accused sustained by the court 306 

Judge-advocate and coun.sel of accused in the matter of the witness Cauldwell reading 

the correspondence relative to the second voucher for the " Shepherd bill " 308, 309 

Court allows the correspondence to be read 310 

Judge-advocate objects to the reading of General Howard's letter February 18, 1874, to 

Third Auditor on same subject 313 

Court overrules objections and allows the reading of the letter 313 

Judge-advocate objects to reading of letter of the Secretary of War February 27, 1874, to 

Secretary of the Treasury 315 

Court overrules objection and allows the letter to be read 315 

Judge-advocate objects to the defense examining his witnesses on new matter in their 

cross-examination, and cites authority 319-321 

Court sustains the j udgo-advocate in the above objection 321 

Judge-advocate objects to defense requ iiing the witness Cauldwell to give his opinion on 

a question of law wliich he is incompetent to define 327 

Counsel of accused in reply to the objection 327 

Court refuses to sustiiin the objection raised by the judge-advocate 327 

J. W. Tooley sworn as reporte* 338 

The jKdge-advocata on the motion of a member of the court to discontinue further in- 
quiry in the " 174 cases," and the reply of counsel of accused thereto 343-346 

Court decides to limit the inquiry 345 

Counsel of accused objects to testimony once introduced to prove confusion of records 

being again used to j)rove dereliction of duty on part of General Howard 362,363 

Reply of judge-advocate thereto 362, 363 

Court declares objection of defense not sustained 364 

Counsel for accused objects to Major Vincent being allowed to alter a formal charge, as 

presented by the Secretary of War 407 

Keply of judge-advocate thereto 408 

Court declares objection of defense not sustained 408 

Judge-advocate offers jiapers referring to the "bond" investments in evidence 415 

Objected to by the accused, and the remarks of his counsel on the matter 416 

Court postpones the receiving of the papers for the present 416 

The court sustains the objection of one of its members to the question asked Major 
Vincent by the judge-advocate, relative to officers of the War Department having 
been sent to the Treasury to examine and redate the accounts of (xenerals Howard 

and Balloch and Major Brown 428 

The judge-advocate objects to the defense bringing in the indorsement of Second 
Comptroller, December 31, 1873, in the matter of the alleged discrepancies in General 

Balloch's accounts. (See Exhibit B, part 2) 485 

Objection overruled by the court 485 

The judge-advocate objects to the defense bringing in the letter of the Second Comp- 
troller, February 9, 1874, in the matter of the bond transaction 487 

Objection overruled by the court 487 

Tlie judge-advocate objects to the defense introducing letter of General Howard, Feb- 
ruary 17, 8174, to Secretary of War, relative to the "Shepherd voucher" 489, 490 

Bemarks of counsel for the accused on the subject 489, 490 



11 

Page. 
COURT OF INQUIRY— Continued. 

Objection overruled by tbe conrt and letter admitted 490 

Arguments by judge-advocate and counsel for accused as to General Howard making 

his statement before the court 506 

The judge-advocate objects to General Howard offering himself as a witness, and pre- 
sents authorities 505,506 

The defense submit the matter to the court 507 

The defense tender General Howard as a witness 508 

The court refuses to accept General Howard as a witness 508 

The argument of the judsce-advocate relative to bringing in rebutting testimony in the 

matter of the charge of discrepancy in balances (?.«.) and the confusion of records, (q.v.) 509,510 

The counsel for the accused objects to any rebutting testimony, except as to new matter 510 

The court sustains the objection 510 

The judge-advocate offers to introduce rebutting testimony in the " Walker ' ' case 511 

The court decides that it has heard enough testimony on this point 512 

Judge-advocate offers to introduce rebutting testimony relative to " retained-bounty 

fund" 512 

Argument of judge-advocate and counsel for accused thereon 512, 513 

Court decides to receive no more testimony on this point 513 

Judge advocate offers to introduce rebutting testimony in the matter of the " Shepherd 

voucher" 513 

Argument of judge-advocate and counsel for accused thereon 513 

The president of the court decides that the court has had enough testimony on this point 513 
The judge-advocate files letter. Department of the Interior, February 29, 1872, indorsed 

by Secretary of War, relative to the detail of General Howard for duty in Arizona . . . 514 
The judge-advocate reads the letter of F. D. Sewell, April 23, 1874, to General Howard 
relative to investigations irito irregularities of the Bureau instituted by General 

Howard 514 

Statement of General Howard 515-528 

Final argument of the accused, by counsel 529-545 

Final argument of judge-advocate 546-592 

Findings of the 593 

Opinion of the 602 

Remarks of the reviewing authority 603 

COURTS, BUREAU, so called, established 208 

CURTIS, JAMES, Capt., disbursing olficer Provost-Marshal-General's Offic* 325 

CUSHMAN, Mr., acting agent Bureau, &c., (Exhibit W^) 90 

CUSTON, MICHAEL, erroneous payment to 446 

I>. 

DAjSTA , SAMUEL, Captain, disbursing oiBcer Provost-Marshal-General's Office 325 

DAVIS, HENRY, case of 118,119,161,364,380,385,391 

DECISION-BOOK kept by General Balloch 261 

DEFAULT. (See respective charges ; also, DISBURSEMENTS.) 
DEFICIENCY : 

Failure of General Howard to transfer funds ($3,754.69) to meet unsettled claims; this 
amount being the difference between amount of unsettled claims and amount trans- 
ferred to meet them. (Charge 1-2.) 

Relative to $2,889.89 paid to Captain McMillan - 97 

Major Brown's testimony relative to money turned over to Captain McMillan 191, 192, 193 

General BallocKs testimony relative to his paying bounties twice 222 

Mr. Moodeifs testimony : 

The letter. War Department, Adjutant-Generars Office, July 13, 1872 346 

Money turned over to the War Department in every case where General Howard 

was called upon, except the House and Ambers cases 347 

Granger's embezzlement 347 

The examination of " bounty-register" and other records to prove correctness of 

amount transferred to Captain McMillan 349 

In connection with the charge of confusion of records, (q. v.) 

*^How it was ascertained ... 352 

, List of unsettled claims, prepared in Freedmen's Branch, Adjutant-General's Office, 

brought to light — the deficiency 373 

Seth A . Terry's testimony for defense 465, 466 

DEFRAUDING CLAIMANTS, to the amount of $33,888.39, by reason of improper system 
of regulations for payment of bounties, &c.; Charge 1. (5ee, aiso, VOUCHERS, FALSE:) 

The judge-advocate, relative to the "174 cases'' 59 

Loose system on the part of Bureau agents 72-89 

The Fidler case 89,90 

The Jones, Turner, and other cases 91, 92, 93 

Sub-agents under Runkle 96 

The " bounty register' 97 

Whether bounties paid under exhibits from O^ to A'' were paid under act March 29,1867. 102 

Mr Harmon (Treasury Department) on the " 174 cases" 124 

Mr. Beuian on Sauviuet, as agent 146 

Beman's letters to Balloch, (Exhibits S*, T«, U<, and V<) 146, 147 

The Glover case 147 

Difliculties met in payment of bounties, (defense) 148, 154, 155 

General Balloch refunds money in cases of erroneous payments 150 

Mr. Thompson (Adjutant-General's Office) identifies Exhibits S^ T"*, U'', V'' 151 

The judge-advocate offers (Exhibit W^) letter General Howard to Secretary of War 

transmitting report of frauds in Kentucky 152, 153 

On general responsibility of disbursing officers, and manner of making statements in 

Second Auditor's Office of General Howard's account 162-170 

The judge-advooate, relative to taking testimony of defrauded claimants in the "174 

cases " 170-174 

The accused in reply to above 174-177 



12 



DEFRAFPTXG OLAIMANTS-Continued. 

Casus where General Howard disbursed bounties and signed abstract, (Barrett & 

Mattinyly's cases) 

The Second Auditor's testimony as to credit having been taken on vouchers before 

claimant received the money 

Colonel Whittlesey relative to General Howard's supervision of disbursements 195, 

Second Auditor's testimony : 

Relative to overpayments by disbursing officers, especially paymasters 

A 8 to Major Brown's authority to disburse in his own naine 

This authority withdrawn 

Major Broivn's testimony : 

Has filed General Howard's authority to receipt bounty certificates, (Exhibit J') . . . 

Had to pay through banks as Bureau agents were discharged 

Major Whittlesey's testimony : 

Kelative to the appointment and discharge of Bureau agents 

Same as to volunteer officers 

The Commissioner's report to Secretary of War, November 1, 1867 

The workings of the Bureau under General Howard, (court) 

General Howard's authority to Brown to sign Treasury certificates for him 

Number of employes and general working of Bureau 

General Howard's detail to Arizona, and how procured, (objected to, and objection 

sustained) 

General lialloeh's testimony : 

System of disbursing through agents 

The Commissioner's instructions as to identification, and the working of the Bu- 
reau as regards disbursements in general 

Gave no bond : 

How disbursements were made by him, and his idea of the Commissioner's respon- 
sibility under act March 29, 1867, after his conference with Hon. Mr. Eliot 

Difficulties in identification of claimants 

General Howard's supervision of the disbursing oiBco 

His care in the "174 cases" 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : 

Complaints received in 1872 

Course adopted by General Vincent as illustrated by the " Nichols " case 

All complaints are referred to the Second Auditor 

The Acting Secretary of War approved the arrangement 

The opinion of the Attorney-General, July 3, 1873, (page 4, Exhibit B) 

Number of cases referred to Department "of >Tustice 

What the records of the office show in these complaints 

The "174 cases" 

Cases where the records prove non-payment, and how they were so proven 

The " AYalker" case 340, 

Major Brown's monthly reports for Eebruary and March, 1872, in the Walker case, 

and correspondence with him thereto 

Major Brown didn't turn over that $337.33 

The "Eliza Smith case" 

Ten of the 174 cases belong to the Mandeville matter, and three of these are proven 

as not paid 

The discovery of the Mandeville records 

The Frank Wilson case 

In connection with the charge of confusion of records, (q.v.) 

(For analysis of this testimony, see also VOUCHERS, FALSE.) 

How the matter of the " 174 cases " first came up 

As to Adjutant-General's Ofiice notifying General BaUoch when the 174 cases were 

discovered 

The amount stated in seven of the Mandeville cases are included in the $33,888.39. . 
Major Vincent's testimony ; 

What led to the developments in this and other charges 

General lialloeh's testimony : 

Has prepared a full statement covering the 174 cases, which he puts in evidence 

under oath, (Exhibit G') 

Exjdains the above-mentioned statement 

The War Department, by their records, could establish whether the claimants in 

the 174 cases had received their money or not 

J. M. Brown's testimony : 

Relative to the Reason Burbridge and Harriet A. Walker claim two of the 174 

cases 

These parties got their money 

William P. Drew's testimony, (late of Bureau Refugees, Freodmen and Abandoned 
Lands :) 

Mode of doing the business in the Bureau 

G<'neral Howard's pcr.soual attention to the duties of the oflSce 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate : 

Mode of doing business in Bureau 

The Bureau officers prosecuted the claims of the colored soldiers 

Lamech Duuall's testimony, (for defense :) 

Records of Bureau were in good condition 

Seth A. Terry's testimony, (for defense :) 

The Ambro.so, Babbitt, Robbin, and Walker cases 

Witness gave bond 

General Howard's diligence 

Mode of doing business in the Bureau 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate : 

Cannot swear to the truth of the statements, (pages 1 and 2, part 2, Exhibit B). 

The pay-rolls of the Bureau 

Recalled by defense : 

The Ambrose check 



Page. 



181, 182 
196, 197 

198, 199 
199 
199 

200 
201 

201 
201, 202 

203 
203, 210 

213 

213 

215 

221, 222 

223 
223 

239, 240 

241,242 

246, 247 

247 

338 
338, 339 
339 
339 
340 
340 
340 
340 
340-343 

341, 389 

341 
342 

342, 389 

343 

343 

.343 

318-365 

374 

380, 331 
393 



429 
431 



432 



434, 435 
435 



455-457 

457, 458 

458, 459 
460 

463 

466, 467 
467 
468 

468-473 

470 
471 



13 

DEFRAUDING CLAIAf ANTS— Continued. Page. 
Lieut. Joseph A. Sladen's testimony, (for defense :) 

As to General Howard's attention to the duties of the Bureau 476-478 

In the 174 cases 483 

The #87.25, which General Howard paid, has been traced to be due by Major Brown. 463 
Letter of Adjutant-General to General Howard, September 20, 1873, relative to above 

amount 484 

The responsibility for the S208.59, which General Howard paid, was also traced to 

Major Brown : 484 

Major Brown paid both above-mentioned amounts 485 

Letter Adjutant-General's Office, General Townsend, April 22, 1873, to General 

Howard, in the Oliver, Ponder, and Robbins cases 493 

Davids. Blue's testimnuy, (for defense :) 

Mode of keeping account-current books 497, 498 

J. M. Brodhead's testimony, (for defense :) 

As to peculiarity in acts relative to Freedmen's Bureau respecting powers granted 

to the Commissioner 498 

Suispension of accounts implies no oflfense, it being of uniform occurrence 499 

Degress, captain 79 

DELANO, C, Secretary of the Interior, (letter to General Howard, February, 28, 1872) 492, 496 

DETAIL of General Howard to Arizona 215 

DIRKET JACKSON, case of 391 

DISBURSEMENTS, when General Balloch first required monthlv reports of 221 

DISBURSING OFFICERS, responsibility of in general. (See RESPONSIBILITY.) 
DISCREPANCY between account of General Balloch and the Treasurer United States, 
as to money on deposit. (Ex. Doc. 10-2.) 
James Sabine's testimony : 

Corrects clerical error in tabular statement 405 

Relative to records upon which these statements were based 405, 40C 

Seth A. Terry's testimony, (for defense :) 

Apparent as per statement, explained 465, 466, 473 

The Second Comi)troller was satisfied with the explanations of witness respecting 

this 473 

Recalled by defense : 

Explanation of former testimony 475_ 475 

Lieutenant J. A. Sladen's testimony : 

Defense introduces letter of Second Comptroller, December 31, 1873, relative to 486 

J. M. Brodhcad' s testimony, (by defense:) 

Attorney-General never sent any decision relative to these balances to the Second 

Comptroller 499 

As to the investigation made by the witness in the matter 499 

DOUBLE PAYMENTS, no authority for. (Testimony of Second Auditor) 184 

DOUGLAS, JOHN, private. Fifty-fifth United States Colored Troops, witness 359 

DOW, Mr., clerk Bureau, &c 459 

DOYLE, JACKSON, case of 160, 161,237 358 

DREW, W. P., as chief bounty division 208, 246,' 257, 413* 414 

As trustee Freedmau's Bank ' ' ' 88 

Briggs's claim '.'.''.'.'.'.".".". 116,117 

Be.ss's claim 13j^ 

As attorney for claimants against the Government 460 

Testimony of, for defense 455-461 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate " 458 459 46O 

DUNN, ALEXANDER, his case !'. 116 161 364 391 

DUREN, Mr., clerk of Bureau, &c ' ' '432 

DUV A LL, L. , clerk of Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands 409 458 460 

Testimony of, for defense ' 4(j.V 453 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate '...'.'.'.'. ~' 463 

DYER, A. B., General, court-martial of ' im 

DYER, G. W., counsel !!'.'.!'.!'.'.'.'.".!!!!!! 3 

E. 

EATON, J. H., major and paymaster 24 87 

Consultation of General Balloch with relation to mode of paying bounties in Pay De- 
partment oio 

EASTMAN, SETH, Colonel oqS 

EDUCATION. (See SCHOOLS.) 

EDUCATIONAL FUND used in repairing Howard University 2'?'> 

EDWARDS, MARK, agent 198 245 

ELDER, E. J., agent, no salary ' qq 

ELIOT, Hon. Mr., M.C. " 



240 

ELLERBROOK, Mr., clerk Adjutant-General's Office !!.'.!!'.".'.'.'.' 401 

EMMONS, S. T., disbursing clerk Engineer Department .'. '" 25-29 

EMPLOYMENT, the work of the Bureau in connection with, of freedmen "205 

EVANS, THOMAS H., clerk Adjutant-Geueral's Office .'.'....'.'. 374 

EYELET H, JAMES, disbursing clerk Engineer Denartment . 2=i-Q9 '=a 

EWIN6, TAYLOR G., administrator..... .... 360 

EXPENSES OF BUREAU prior to July 1871, medical and otherwise " 286 

EXHIBITS; -- . - - ^00 

Admitted, page Printed, page 

of proceedings. of index. 

J 11 10 

K U 11 

L 17 

M 21,27 43 

N 22 43 

23 54 

P--- 31 61 

Q 35 82 

R 45,47 90 



Ad 


mitted. page 


Printed 


page 


ol 


proceedings. 


of index. 




4 




1 




5 




1 




5 




1 




6 




2 




8 




3 




11 




4 




11 




6 




11 




8 




11 




9 



14 



EXHIBITS— Continued. 





Admitteii, page P 


inted. page 




of proceedings. 


of index. 


s 


48 


92 


T 


50 


93 


U 


54 


93 


V 


54 


94 


w 


56 


94 


X 


56 


95 


Y 


56 


86 


Z 


56 


96 


A' 


56,61 


96 


Bi 


56 


97 


C 


56,62 


97 


D' 


56, 62 


98 


E' 


56 


98 


El 


56 


99 
99 


G' 


56,67,76 


HI 


57 


100 


P 


57 


100 


Ji 


57 


100 


Ki 


57 


101 


Li 


57 


101 
]02 


M> 


57 


N» 


57 


102 


01 


57 


103 


Pi 


57 


103 


Q' 


57 


103 


Ki 


58 


104 
104 


S' 


59 


Ti 


69 


110 


W 


'69 


111 


VI 


69 


112 
113 


w 


69 


XI 


69 


114 


T' 


61 


116 
117 


Zi 


71 


A2 


71 


118 


B2 


71 


118 


C2 


71 


121 
122 


D2 


71 


E' ; 


71 


122 


F2 


91 


123 
124 


G' 


71 


H2 


71 


124 
125 


p 


75,77 


J2 


75 81 


125 
126 


K2 


76 


L2 


81 


126 


M2 


81 


127 


N2 


HI 


128 
129 


02 


83 


p> 


83 


129 


Q^; 


83 


130 


V 


83 


130 


S2 


84 


130 


T2 


84 


131 


U^ 


84 


131 


V2 


84 


131 


TV^I 


84 


132 


X2 


84 


132 


T2 


85 


132 


z^ 


85 


132 


A3 


85 


133 
133 


B3 


85 


C^ 


85 


133 


D3 


85 


134 


E3 


85 


134 


E3 


86 


134 


G^ 


86 


134 


H3 


86 


135 


P 


86 


135 


J3 


86 


135 


K3 


86 


135 


L3 


86 


136 


MS 


87 


136 


K3 


87 


136 


03 


87 


137 


P3 


87 


137 


Q' 


89 


137 


E' 


89 


138 


S3 


89 


138 


T3 


89 


138 


U3 


89 


139 
139 


V3 


90 


vv 


90 


139 


X3 


90 


139 
140 
140 


Y3. 


90 


Z3 


91 



Admitted, page Printed, page 
of proceedings. of index. 

A^ 91 140 

B^ 98 140 

C^ 98 141 

D^ 105 142 

E'" 110 144 

E4 110 145 

G« 117 145 

H* 119 146 

P 120 147 

J^ 120 147 

K^ 123 147 

L"" 123 148 

M" 126 149 

N^ 126 153 

0^ 129 154 

P^ 129 155 

Q" 129 155 

E^ 137 156 

S"" 146 167 

T'" 146 168 

U-> 147 168 

Y'^ 147 169 

W" I.i3 170 

X^ 153 171 

T^ 178 182 

Z'^ 179 182 

A« 180 183 

B* 185 183 

05 189 184 

D6 196 184 

E6 196 185 

F« 196 185 

G6 199 187 

H6 200 188 

P 200 188 

J5 200 189 

K5 202 189 

L^ 202 191 

M5 202 192 

N« 203 192 

0= 203 193 

P= 203 194 

Q6 203 196 

R5 213 ■ 198 

S^ 219 198 

T6 219 198 

17= 237 198 

V« 247 199 

W6 247 200 

X^ 248 203 

Y6 250 205 

Zs 265 206 

A6 265 206 

B''. 265 207 

C« 265 208 

D6 279 248 

W 292 249 

F6 292 250 

G6 300 251 

H« 300 252 

P 300 253 

J6 300 254 

K* 3tl0 255 

L6 300 256 

M'' 300 256 

N^ 302 257 

O' 302 258 

ps 302 258 

Q* 302 259 

E": 302 260 

S« 302 261 

T« 302 262 

U6 302,311 263 

V^ 302,311 264 

W 311 264 

X6 406 265 

Y^ 412 280 

Z* 412 285 

A' 412 287 

B' 412 287 

C 412 291 

D' 415 292 

E' 415 292 

F» 426 293 

G' 42» 300 

H' 429,512 301 



15 



FALSE VOUCHERS- {See VOUCHERS.) 

FANT, WASHINGTON & CO, bankers 342,382 

FEES, RETAINED, failure to properly account for, (charge 1-3) 77, 78, 79 

Record ol 110 

Exhibits E-i and F-* 110 

~yGeneral BallocKs testimony, Mr. Harmon authorized him to retain the fees 223 

FESSEN UEN, Hon. W. P., United States Senator 298 

FIDI.ER, JAMES M., acting agent, (advances) 89, 90 

JILLMORE, MILLARD, Ex-President, announcement of death of 5 

FINDINGS of the court 593 

FOLSOM, JOSEPH L, assistant quartermaster 199 

FORBES, JOHN M., bondsman for Major Brown 189 

FOSTER, J. G., lieutenant-colonel engineers, acting chief engineer, testimony of, by judge- 
advocate 25-29 

Cross-examination by defense 28 

FOWLER, WILLIAM, brevet major, &c., agent and attorney 208 

Brown's case 132 

In charge claims division 246, 456, 458, 460, 461 

FRAZER, JOHN, case of 161,237,358 

FEEEDMAN'S BANK : 

Connection of officers and agents of the Bureau with 88 

Messrs. Drew and Alvord were trustees of 88 

Mentions names of prominent officials of Departments as trustees of 88 

Mobile branch of 119 

Mode of doing business in connection with payment of bounties through 121, 149, 233 

Payments through cashier of branch of 74, 89, 84, 87, 157, 189, 190, 201 

Pay-rolls of Adjutant-General's Office cashed by 231, 232, 24.' 

FREEDMEN'S BRANCH. {See ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE.) 
FREEDMEN'S BUREAU. {See also under disbursements and responsibilities, and also 
under the respective charges :) 

Brown's testimony relative to division of work in the 194, 195, 203, 210 

Reports of, admitted in evidence 202, 203 

The several funds connected with 260 

Second Comptroller's testimony : 

Relative to laws creating and governing 498 

Records kept in 366 

Major Viiiceyit's testimony : 

Relative to correspondence in connection with the discontinuance of the 418-423 

As to the duty or province of the Adjutant-General's Office to investigate charges 

concerning accounts of the late 424 

Joh7i H. Cook's testimony : Manner of doing business in 450-455 

Wm. P. Drew's testimony: Same subject 455-461 

Andreiv Coates's testimony : Same subject 461-462 

Lameeh Duvall's testimony: Same subject 462, 463 

Seth A. Terry's testimony : Same subject 463-473 

Lieut. J. A. Sladen's testimony : 

Manner of doing business in 476-482 

Correspondence with officers and agents of, relative to turning in their archives .... 479 
Relative to detail of clerks from Adjutant-General's Office to assist in conijileting 

records of 480 

FRENCH, E. B., Second Auditor United States Treasury : 

Testimony of, by judge-advocate 43-48 

Cross-examination by defense 45 

Recalled .' 52-53 

Recalled 178-188 

Recalled 198-201 

Recalled 268-270 

Where officially referred to. {See SECOND AUDITOR.) 

As to trustee of Freedman's Bank 88 

FRENCH, O. C, agent, &c 75,77,81 

Defalcation of 77 

Accounts of 97 

War Department reports him a defaulter, (Exhibits C*, K*, L*) 98 

Present account of 179 

Credit of $3,000 by Noouan to General Howard 179 

Discrepancy in money turned over to Captain McMillan, caused by defalcation of 190, 193, 194 

Colonel Whittlesey's testimony 211, 212 

General Bulloch's testimony : 

As to the time he (French) remained on duty after discharge as paid agent 220 

Relative to suit against 224 

As to what he learned through General Howard relative to 248 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : 

How the, first came up in Adjutant-General's Office 375 

None of his cases are included in the 174 cases 392 

Lieut. J. A . Sladen's testimony , for defense : 

Letter of William Noonan, (surety,) Natchez, Miss., August 36, 1873, to General 

Howard, transmitting $3,000 to be credited to French 488 

FRY, E., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 281, 286 

FRY, JAMES B., lieutenant-colonel and Assistant Adjutant-General. (See, also, PRO- 
VOSTMARSHAL-GENERAL : 

Testimony of 321-326 

Re-examined by defense 324 

FULLERTON, — , General Inspector of Freedmen's Bureau 195, 477 

FUNDS : 

The several, connected with Freedmen's Bureau 260 

Such funds are considered trusts, (Second Auditor's testimony) 269 



16 

Page 
FUNDS— Continued. 

There art) several such funds in the Interior Department, (Second Auditor's testimony) 269 

Indian trust-fund, (Second Auditor's testimony) '. . 269 

Soldier's Home fund, (Second Auditor's testimony) 270 

Ci. 

GAINES, ARTHUR, case of 262,437 

GrARFIELD, Hon. J. A., M. C, chairman committee, &c. : 

Letter Secretary of War, June — , 1872 216 217 

Letter Secretary of War, April 26, 1872 422 

Letter Secretary of War, May 22, 1872 427 

GILLI AM & PRUDEN, attorneys 338 

GILLXIOKE, Q. A., lieut. col. Engineers 25 

GLOVER, WASHINGTON, case of 147 

GOINGS, ARTHUR, re-inibur.sement case 262, 437,446 

GRA H A M, SA MUEL A., agent Bureau, &c., (no salary) 82, 1.53 

GRANGER, LEWIS E., captain United States Army 347, 484 

GRANT, U. S., Acting Secretary of War 298 

GRAY, ROBERT 132 

GREEN, T.E 129 

GRIFFIN, SAMUEL, " re-imbursement " case 437, 446 

H. 

HALET, GEORGE, ca.se of 391 

HALL, JOHN P., attorney ; Wright's case 139 

HAMMOND, ALFRED, case of 119, 161, 361, 384, 391 

Finding his check 390 

HAR M ON, H. C, testimony of 124-14.5, 154 

Cross-exaraiued 141 

HARltlSOX, WM. H., clerk, Adjutant-General's Office 337, 373. 374 

Testimony of, by judge-advocate 278-289 

Cross-examination by defense 279-285 

HAZARD, JAMES, case of, P^ 129 

HELENA ORPHAN ASYLUM 419, 422 

HENDERSHOTT, H. B., captain and disbureing-oflacer, Provost-Marshal-General's Office. . 325 

HENDERSON, GEORGE W., case of 133,137 

HE WE Y, JO.SEPH, case of 159, 237, 358, 359 

HILDT, J. McL., Capt., disbursing officer, Provost-Marshal-General's Office 325 

HILL, HENRY, voucher of 95 

HODGE, J. L., Mai., paymaster 24, 56, 57, 58, 139, 141, 466 

HORD, MARIANE, ca.se of 116,161,219,360,391 

HOSPITAL FORINSANE AND IDIOTS 104 

HOSPITAL FOR FREEDMEN, or Howard University grounds 257 

HOSPITALS, work of the Bureau in connection with 205 

HOUSE, PETER case of 347, 348, 349, 382, 485, 495 

HOUSE OE REPRESENTATIVES. {See REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OP.) 

HOWARD, CHARLES IL, General, and Inspector Freedmeu's Bureau 413 

HOWARD, O. O 3, 22, 34-39, 42-50, 52, 53, 56, 58, 62, 63, 66, 68, 70, 71, 77, 78, 79, 81, 92, 99, 101, 104, 110, 111, 

113, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 125, 126-131, 132, 133, 137, 139, 141, 143, 144, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153, 155- 
171, 173-180, 183-189, 191, 192, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 206, 209, 210, 211, 213-220, 
222, 223, 225, 220, 227, 230-236, 239, 240, 246, 247, 248, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255, 257-260, 2(13, 264, 266, 
2C8, 271, 272, 273. 274, 276, 279, 284, 290-293, 297, 300, 302, 304, 309-317, 320, 330, 336, 343, 344, 345, 
346, 348, 349, 355, 3.57, 359, 361, 362, 363, .364, 369, 373, 375, 378, 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 390, 391, 
393, 39-1, 395, 396, 397, 424, 427, 428, 429-439, 444, 450, 453, 455, 457-461, 464-468, 470, 473, 475-496, 

498, 500-505, 507, 508, 509, 511, 513, 514 

Mr. Moodey explains the credit of, on Treasury books, of $209.96 383, 391, 400-404, 409, 

411-418,422,424 

Application of, for detail of Major Runkle, (Exhibit D') 414, 415 

Letter of, February 4, 1874, to Secretary of War in replv to hia letter of June 31, 1874, 

War Department ' 437 

Same, of February 12, 1874, to Secretary of War, in reply to letter of February 11, 1874, 

War Department 438 

Same, of January 22, 1872, to Secretary of War, showing the transaction of the $250,000 

invested in United States bonds 443 

Same, of December 27, 1871, to Secretaiy of War, relative to his having accounted to the 

Treasury for interest on bonds 445 

Same, letter of Januaiy 8, 1873, to Secretary of War, relative to " retained-bounty fund" 481 

Same, same date, to the United States Treasurer, same subject 482 

Letter from Adjutant-General's Office, September 20, 1873, to, acknowledging receipt of 

$87.25 '. 484 

Letter of Second Comptroller to, February 9, 1S74, relative to investment in United 

States bonds 487 

Letter of Adjutant-General, January 3, 1874, to, relative to permission to consult 

records in Freedmen's Branch 488 

Letter, April 14, 1874, to Secretary of the Treasury, relative to accounting for balance 

" irregular-bounty fund " . .'. 545 

Reply of Secretary of the Treasury, April 20, 1874, same subject 546 

Captain McMillan's receipt, dated February 3, 1873, for balance "irregular-bounty 

fund " 546 

Letter of William Noouan, Natchez, Miss., to, transmitting $3,000 to be credited on the 

O. C. French bond 488 

Letti'r, February 17, 1874, of, to Secretary of War, informing the Department of the 

tiling of the second " Shepherd voucher " 489 

Letter, February 24, 1874, of, to General Balloch, relative to " Shepherd voucher " 490 

Letter of Secretary of the Interior, February 28. 1872, to, on the Arizona business 492 



17 

Page. 
HOWARD O. O.— Continued. 

Letter of Adjutant General's Office, (Vincent,) July 14, 1873, to, relative to charges 

and the " retainet'-bountv fund' "192 

Letter of Adjutant-General's Office, April 22, 1873, to, relative to the "Oliver," "Poader," 

and " Rohbins" cases 493 

Letter fioni Secretary of "War, June 29, 1872, to, complimenting General Howard's con- 
duct in the ticl 1 and Bureau 494, 519 

Letter of, April 6, 18fi9, accepting the presidency of Howard University, conditionally. 494 
Letter of F. D. Sewell, April 23, 1874, to, relative to General Howard's attention to the 

duties of the Bureau 514 

Statement of, to the court, in answer to the charges 515-528 

Letter, December 17, 1873, to chairman Committee on Military Aff^iira, House of Repre- 
sentatives, in rebuttal of charges in letter of Secretary of War of December 4, 1873 - - 516 
Letter of, November 27, 1873, to General Sherman, asking to be assigned to Array duty. 517 
Letter of Secretary of Treasury, April 26, 1874, to, directing that account of " irregular- 

bountv fund " be rendered to' the Treasury 527 

Letter of, to Second Auditor, April 28, 1874, complying with above orders 527 

Ari;nment of ciinn8»'l for 529 

HO'WARD UNIVERSITY 262,424 

Bill for "Clark Hall", f 16,652.25 227,228,234,2.54,290 

Sale of Normal School to , 104, 257 

. Relative to acceptance of presidency of, by General Howard 494 

HOWE, A. P., Major United States Army, in charge claims division, Bureau Preedmen, 

Rofunees aiid Abandoned Lauds 246, 455 

HYATTSVILLE (Md.) SCHOOL 19,422 

I. 

IDENTIFICATION OF CLAIMANTS. (S^e CLAIMANTS.) 

INDIAN A FFAIKS, (Jommissioner of 269, 491 

INSPECTIONS BY BUREAU, General Whittlesey relative to 209 

(See,alf!0, FREEDMEN'S BUREAD.) 

INSPECTION OF BUREAU by General Howard 246, 247, 477 

OP MANDEVILLE'S CASE by General Sewell 247 

ifiee, also, FREEDMEN'S BUREAU.) 

INTERIOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE 269,270 

Relative to General Howard's detail to duty in 480, 491, 492, 496 

Letter of the Secretary of the, February 29,' 1872, to Secretary of War, asking detail of 

General Howard 514 

INTEREST or, bonds. iSee BONDS.) 

J- 

JACKSON, DANIEL, fraud committed by 262 

JAMES, HOR.At'E, captain and assistant quartermaster, " retaiued-boiinty fund "..103, 104,249, 2.'50, 432 

JAY COOKE ct ,:0 ■ 230 

JOHNSON, C'HAKLES WILLIAM HENRY, colored 414 

JOHN.SON, MARY ANN, widow of Wesley, erroneous payment 446 

JOHNSON, JOHN, erroneous payment case 446 

JOHNSON, R. E, Exhibit W» ..'. 153 

JONE>, F. W., fraud 151 

JONES, JOHN, case of 92 

JON ES, JULI US, case of 159, 161, 212, 237, 358 

JORI) A N, M I LBS. re-imbnr.sement ca.se 437, 446 

JUDtiE-ADVOCATE. (,§^6 COURT OF INQUIRY.) 

JUSTICE, DEPAR'J'MENT of, {See. also, ATTORNEY-GENERAL :) 

To prosecute in cases of fraudulent claims 179, 180, 181 

General Vincent's letter, May 27, 1873, to Adjutant-General, asking certain cases be re- 
ferred to, for prosecution '. '.' 388, 389 

K. 

KELLOGG, J. L., attorney 414 

KELLOGG, W. P., Hon., United States Senate 80,81 

KETCHUM, EDGAR 425 

General Howard asks admission of as counsel 3 

KINDRED, HENRY, case of, letter of General Vincent in 389 

KING, C CARENCE. disbursintc clerk Engineer Department 25, 26, 27, 29 

KNOWER, E. C, Captain, agent of Bureau, &c 192,211 

L,. 

L AMOTTE, R. V., major and disbursing officer, erroneous payment made by 396, 397 

LANDS, Abandoned aud public, testimony of General Whittlesey as to the -^york of the 

Bureau in connect iou with 206 

LANGRAN.OGILVIE&. CO., bill of stationery 275 

LANGSTON, J. M., inspector of schools. Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 

Lands 478 

LARNED. CHARLES T., major and paymaster 24,58,200,201 

LAWRENCE, Hon. WILLIAM M. C 409 

L A WSON. G., Cantain, 25th inf atry 266 

LEATHERBURY, P. A., agen no'salary 83 

Robbin's case 117 361 

LELAND UNIVERSITY, N Orleans 419 422 

LIABILITY. (&e FUNDS, i SBURSEMENTS, RESPONSIBILITY, &C.) 

LINCOLN, A., President Ur.: d States 459 

LODER, RICHARD, Captai- Jisbursing officer, Provost-Marshal-General's Office 325 

li H— I 



Page. 

LOXCt, KICHARD, case of 16), 237, 358,339 

LPNDY. JOSEPH, case of ' 39I 

LYTTLE, Paymaster, relief in case of eiroLCOus payiueut mailc by 367 

M. 

MAX'DEVILLi:, ST. CLAIR, defalcation of, (charge 2.) (See, alio, SAUVINfiX.) 

^landeville's bond 73 

Payments made out of funds left in his safe 19-81, 03, 94 

Has 1)0 knowledge of, except Sauvinefs oi)iuion 122, 123 

Mr. Beman's testimoDy 146^ 14^] 1.50 

His connection with the suit against ' 155^' 1.56 

Colonel Whitleseij's testimony '212 

Gtneral Balloch's testimony : 

Never received any of his books 220 

(ieueral Howard's diligence in proceeding against 247 

AVitness sent money to, to make good the receipted vouchers 248 

Mr. Moodeifti testimony : 

The '• Olivia'' ca.se" 2(i4, 265, 266, 375 

Tliere is nothing among the records by which a list of claimants defrauded by, 

could he made out 266 

His cases among the 174 cases 343 

His record.s found at the railroad depot in Washington 343» 

How the matter of Mandeville first came up in Adjutant-General's Office 375 

Ten of his cases are enumerated in the 174 cases 392 

Three of the 174 cases go to make up the .$8,.503.29 393 

M.VTTl \( JLT, CECELIA, mother of David Miles, case of |178 

M( ( '( i()!v. (reneral, agent Bureau, &c 479 

]Mcr()l(;HTKT; Ehza G. "Wright's case ' 1.39 

Mcculloch, H.. Secretary of the Treasury 228 

McDonald, SAMUEL, case of 119, 120, 161, .360, 361 

McGEE, J. L., late clerk Bureau, testimony by judge-advocate, (rebutting evidence) 508, 509 

McGILL, C. T., attorney 338 

McLEAN. J. T. E.. commissioner, witness 128, 129, 138 

McMillan, JAMES, captain Third Artillery, chief disbursing officer 16,18,20,78,97,116,117, 118, 

168, 169, 170, 171, 179, 188, 190, 191, 193,' 2J2, 339,346,349,360. 373, 375, 376, 381, 382, 383, 384, 399, 428, 

434,480,493,511 

Erroneous payment made hy ; Brown case : 367, 368 

His principal duties are those appertaining to disbursements 388, 395, 396 

His receipt, dated February 3, 1873, for balance " irregular-bounty fund '' 546 

Second ATiditor has an account with 168, 169, 170 

Eeceipt of, to General Howard for balance ■?!, 628.59 irreaiilar-bounty fund. 483 

McMillan, JAMES, Captain, di.shur.sing otficer Provost-Marshal General's Office 325 

McNEELY. Hon. Mr., Member of Congress ; 230 

3ItPHEKS0N. EDWAKD, Clerk House Eepre.sentatives .' 410 

:\IED1CAL EXPENSES OP BUKEAU, between July 1, 1871, and June 30, 1872 286 

MEIGS, M. C, Brigadier-General, Chief Quartermaster, testimony of, hy judge-advocate.. . 7-10 

Cross-examined bv defense 9 

MILES, DAVID, case of .• 178 

MILITARY STORE-KEEPERS. {See STORE-KEEPERS, MILITARY.) 
MISAPPLICATIO.X OF FUNDS. (Hee APPROPRIATIONS and BOUNTY.) 

MITC II F. L, W. C, recorder 3, 16 

!MOODEY, JOHN 6., chief clerk, disbursing office Freedmen's branch, Adjutant-Geneial's 

Office 278, 279, 284, 285, 287, 308, 310, 311, 314, 335, 435, 453, 454, 490, 496, 513 

Testimony of 264-267 

Recalled '. 338-369 

Redirect examination 387-391, 400-401 

Cross-examined 266, 267 

Cross-examined, (by defense) 369-387 

Recross-cvamined, (by defense) 392-399 

Rebutting evidence liv judge-advocate refused by the court 509 

MORGAN. P. H., attorneV 153 

MOUNT PLEASANT (MD.) SCHOOL 419, 42o 

MOWER, JOSEPH A., major-general, &c 79,80,81,98,239 

MOYERS, GILBERT, attorney Sog 

MUZ7.Y, A. M., clerk, Adjutant-General's Office 279, 28g 

MYERS, Major, as.sistant quartermaster 24 _r, 

NATIONAL BANK, of Nashville, checks on 118, 119, 120 

NATIDX.VL BANK, of New Berne 85 

NATIONAL BANK, FIRST, of Washington, D. C 231 

N ATIOX.V L B.VNK, FIRST, Indi.anapolis 391 

NATIONAL BAXK,MEri;()POLITAN, of Washington, D. C 231 

N ATKJX A L Il.V NK, FIltST, of ( lalveston 386 

NAVY DEPARTMENT, disbursing clerk for, (Fo.ster) 29 

NICHOLAS, SANDERS, " reimbursement case " 437 

NICHOLS, Doctor, superintendent Insane A.sylum 233 

NICHOLS. ISAAC, case of 338 

NOOXAN, WM., hondsman for French 179 

Letter August 16, 1873, to General Howard, tratsmitting 13,000 credit to 0. C. French . . 488 

O. 

OATHS : 

Testimony of General Balloch relative to officers, agents, and employes taking oath 

under act March 3, 1865 79 

Did not know whether Scruggs took the 84 

Did not keep any record of 85 



19 

Page. 
OBJECTIONS, by accusod. (See COURT OF INQriRT.) 
OFFENSES, as lised in Special Order 38 of 1874, War Department, Adjutant-General's Office, 

General Howard, as dettnition of word 3 

OFFICERS. (See under RESPONSIBILITY and the several charjies.) 

OLIVER, MICHAEL, case of 118, 119, 161, 364, 380, 385, 391, 493 

OLIVIA, BENJA:\IIN, sergeant Eighty-fourth United States Colored Troops, case of 264, 205, 266, 375 

OPINION OF THE COURT 602 

ORDERS, GENERAL, W;ir Department, Adintant-General's Office, No. 33, 1874 5 

"War Department, A iljutaiit General's Onice, in general, govern mode of disbursement 

in Quartermaster-Gener-al's Office ^ 

In Subsistence Department 11 

No. 86, of 1871 ; a condensation of rules governing disbursements 7 

No. 63, of 1867 15 

No. 55, of 1872 16, 494 

No. 68, 1871 319 

No. 38, 1870, relative to admitting te.stimonv of accused parties in courts-martial 505 

Department of VirEjiiiia and North Carolina, No. 90, August 4, 1864 103, 105, 462 

ORDERS, SPECIAL, Adjutant-General's Office. 

No. 35 1 

No. 51 2 

ORDERS OF THE COURT. (See COURT OF T'iTQUIRY.) 

ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT. (See, also, B^fftT.) 30-34 

Di,sburseiueuts in 30-34 

Store-keepers. (.S-ge STORE-KEEPERS, ORDNANCE.) 

OULAHAN,RICHARD,Mr., clerk Third Auditor's Office 474 

OVERLY, P. J., agent, &c 192, 340, 341, 381 , 434 

OVERPAYMENTS. (See under RESPONSIBILITY and the respective chirges.) 

P. 

PAGE, HENRY. Colonel, agent, &c 383, 384, 387 

PALMKK, K. S., Cdhmel 238 

PARKEi;, (tEOKCE a., agent, no salary 82 

PA RK El!, r HUM AS, witness \ 145 

PAYMASTER-GENERAL, and Office 16, 2.3, 24. 13.3, 136. 137, 139, 144, 181, 182, 185, 246, 498, 501 

(See, also. ALVORD.) 

PAYMA STEPS 24, 133, 134, 181, 182, 258, 469 

Payment of wrong parties by 185 

Allowance, under act of Maich 16, 1868, for overpayments made by 198, 199 

Relative to their mode of p.aying bounties 243 

As to power of, to invest funds in United States bonds.. , 501, 502 

PAYMASTERS' CLERKS 23 

PAYMENTS not propeih^ made &c. 

(See, VOUCHERS ; Charge 1.) 
PENSION-OFFICE : 

In connection with work of the Bureau, &c 262, 456 

PERCY, H. C, agent, letter of September 14, 1867. to. (Exhibit B'') 85 

PILLSURY, Mr., warden Albany Penitentiary. (E.\:hibit A^) 91 

POLAND, Hon. Mr '. 2?8 

PONDER, -TAMES, case of 118, 119, 101, 364, 380, 385, 391, 493 

POWER, .JOS. P., agent, no salary 82 

POWER, C. M., agent, no salary 82 

PRESIDENT OF THE UiMTED STATES: 

Proclamation by Andrew Johnson 49 

Has issued orders relative to disbursements 54 

Letter April 22, 1874, to president of co\irt, asking for report of, and facts upon which 

opinion of the court of inquiry is based 368 

Mr. Drew implies that, (Linccdii,) authorized the Bureau of Refugees, Freednien and 

Abandoned Lands to prosecute claims for colored soldiers against the Government. .. 459 
PROCEEIiINiiS OF THE COURT. (Sw COURT OF INQUIRY.) 
PROVOST-r^lAKSIIALGENERAL'S OFFICE : 
Colonel Fry's testimony : 

iMode of disbursement in use in 321-326 

Condition of records 370, 371, 372, 387, 454 

PROVOS r-:\I A KSHALS. as to appointment, duties, their mode of doing bu.siuess, &c 322-326 

PUr.LIC MOXICVS. («ec FUNDS.) 

PUNG0TP:.V OV K, town of claimants living at 84 

PURSE, (or BURSE,) JACKSON, reimbursement case 437, 446 

a. 

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL 261, 298 

Second ComjHroller'g testimony : 

Relative to the powers of'the, to invest funds in bonds 501 

Powers of. under act 1864 502 

QUARTERMASTER-GENERAL'S OFFICE. (See. also, MEIGS.) 

Responsibility for public moneys of officers in. (See RESPONSIBILITY) 240 

Accounts of, "act of July 2, 1870, relative to 319 

R. 

RATHBUN, H. R., Capt., disbursing officer Provost-Marshal-General's Office 325 

RAY, clerk Freedmen's Bureau. H. H., agent, &c. (342, 343, the Smith case.) 119, 120, 161, 220 

REAVIS, WILLIAM, witness 95,139 

RECORDER OF THE COURT 3,30,198 

RECORDS, Bureau of Refugees, Freednien and Abandoned Lands: 

Confusion of, charge as to, date of transfer of 152, 197 

General Whittlesey's testimony relative to lack of funds, &,c., to properly close the, 

and arrange the 215-218 



20 



Page. 
KECORDS— CoutinuPd. 

Mr. Moodey's tostiinony : 

Ditticiilties in ascertaining whether bounties had been paid or not, from the records. 350 

Had finally to search the records in Second Auditor's OtMce, and suspend payments 

in the mean time ' 350 

For analysis of testimony in the matter of the deficiency of $3,754.69. (See DEFI- 

CIBNCY.) 
For analysis of testimony in the matter of the $30,314.77. (See APPROPEIA- 

TION Ft)K 187-2) 353-356 

For analysis of testimony in the matter of the $73,048.40, (see BOUNTY- MONEY,) 

uiisiiiiiilication of 353-356 

For analvsi.-i of testimony in the matter of the interest-money, $19,446,57, (see 

B(,)NI)S UNITED STATES and the Shepherd vouchers) 356-3.58 

The 174 cases 358-365 

For analysis of testimony, (see DEFRAUDING CLAIMANTS and VOUCHERS, 

FALSE.) 
The dil}i(\ilties met with reference to conducting the affairs of the Bureau after 

the t rau.sfer 365-366 

Incoiii plct (• .state of the books 366 

Unadjiistfil ocrtiflcates 366 

Work in Frecdmen's Branch, Adjutant-General's Ottice, sini-o transferred 369 

The ciuKlition of the records of the mustering and disbursing officer, Provost-Mar- 

slial General's Office 370-372 

And their comparison with the records of Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and 

^ A Ijaudoued Lands 387-388 

Findiuii the deficiency of #3,754.69 373 

Relativ(^ to the 174 cases .374 

How the matters set forth in the several charges first came up in the Adiutant- 

Generals Office '. 375 

Instructions for keeping records iu Adjutant-General's Office were not applied to 

M. and U. branch, and why 377, 378 

General Fry's knowledge of the business, of the Adjutant-General's Office 392 

Relative to Mr. Cook's statement of the condition of the - 392 

Number of the records were destroyed alter their arrival iu Adjutant-General's 

Office ; 398 

Circular Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abaudoned Lands, March 19, 1872, sus- 
pending collection of claims 399 

Major Vincent's testimony : 

Relative to incomplelieuess of records 4 U, 412, 413 

Mi.ssing recoids being supplied 412 

As to mode of (liiiiig business in Adjutant-General's Office as compared with late 

Bureau of R('l'u;;ees, Fieedmeu and Abandoned Lands 423, 424 

General Howard was extended every facilitj' by the Adjutant General's Office to 

secure or re.store missing records 428 

John E. Cook's testimony : 

All the records were in good condition at closing of Bureau 4.')0 

Mode of doing the business in late Bureau 451, 4.52 

Condition of the ' ' archives " 453 

How the records were removed to the War Department . . 454 

Confusion caused by removal 454 

Lieutenant Jos. A. tSladen's testimony : 

Effijrts on the pait of General Howard to procure mis.sing 479 

Relative to time and force necessary to complete the records of State and other 

agents of the Bureau, (archives) ■. 49C 

J. L. McGilVs testimony : 

Relative to his completing records of late Bureau .508, 509 

RECORDS, PUBLIC. (See under RESPONSIBILITY and the several charges.) 

REDWOOD. JAMES, ca.se of 84 

REESE. D. H 127 

REFUGEES: 

General Wldttlesen's testimony : 

The work of the Bureau iu connection with 204 

RE-IMBURSEM E NT. (Exhibit B, part 2, page 8) 184 

For erroneous pajments made bv Captain McMillan denied by the Treasury 367 

(See, also, APPROPRIATION.) 
REPRESENTATIVES, HOUSE OF : 

Letter of Secretary of War to Speaker, admitted in evidence 4 

Bill No. 1359 relative to abolishing Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned 

Lands , 421 

Committee on Api>ropriations 230,409 

Letter ot Secretary of War, April 26, 1873, to chairman of, relative to bill 1359 422 

Letter of Secrc^lary of War on freedmen's affiiirs 240, 423 

Letter of cluiirniaii, April 1, 1872, relative to bill for abolition of Freedmen's Bureau 419 

Milit.Try Coiiiniitlie, letter of General Howard to chairman, February 3, 1873 397 

Same to siiiiie, of date December 17, 1873 516 

RESPONSIBILITY of disbursing officers, agents, Ac, in general : 

Testimony of General Meigs as to Quartermastei-(ieiieial's Office 6-10 

Testimony of Colonel Sliiras as to Commissaty Suli.sist<!ice Depaitment 10-14 

Testimony of GtMieral Townseud as to A(ljutiint(!ciieial's Office 14-23 

Testimony of General Alvord as to Paynuister-C ieniial's Olfice 22-24 

Testimony of Colonel Foster as to Engineer Di partment 2.5-29 

Testimony of Major Benet as to Ordnance Office 30-34 

Testimony of Second Comptroller, (Brodhead) 34-43, 489-505 

Testimony of Se(H)nd Auditor, (E. B. French) 43-48, 180-186, 52-53 

Testimony of Third Auditor, (Rutherford) 48-51 

Testituoiiy of First Comptroller, (Tayler) 53-.5.5, 60 

Testimony of Mr. True, (Treasury Department) .55-56, 58-60 

Testimony of Major Vincent, ( Adjutant-Gentiral's Office) 56-58 



21 



RESPOXSIIULTTV— Continued. 

Tn8titniiny of (Ji-neral Halloch CO-7'2 

Teatimouy ot General Balloch as to General Howard 240 

Testimony of Mr. Harmon, (Treasury Department) 133-135 

Testinionv of Colonel Fry, A. A. G., late Provost-Marsbal-General, of Provost-Mar- 
shal's, &c 321-325 

REVl K WING AliTHORIT Y, remarks of the 603 

KHOAUKS. SILAS, attorney, Wright's case 139 

RICHAKUSOS. WILLIAM A., Secretary of the Treasury Department. (5.;e TREASURY 
DEPARTMENT.) 

RIG HEY, ISAAC, " re-imbursemenf case 437, 446 

RICHIE, ROSE, widow of Allen, claim of 129 

RITTEK, N,\ THAN, cashier, agent 84 

ROBBI N S, .1 A MES, case of 177, 361, 484, 485, 493, 495 

Amouiit due in, case tendered to Captain McMillan by Major Brown 382, 391 

General Howaid paying in the money twice 467 

ROBERTS, <;. S., lieutenant Seventeenth Infantry 386 

ROBERTS, H. C, Capt., disbursing officer 386 

ROCHESTER, W. B., Major, paymaster 24 

ROGE RS, HEN RY, case of 158 

ROSECRANZ, W. S., General 238 

ROSSEN, MITCHELL, case of 343 

ROWINS, HENRY, case of 151:1 

ROWLEY, FRANCIS, voucher of 95 

RUSSELL, HENRY, erroneous payment 446 

RUNKLE, advances made to. by Gt^neral Balloch. (See ADVANCES, IRREGULAR.) 
RUNKLE. 15. P.. major and agent, defalcation of, (Charge 4 :) 
Oeneial Ba loch's testimony: 

Fnd suliagents 82 

His connection with Exhibit P^ 87 

To whom responsible 05 

The Rowley. Suggs, and Hill cases 94 

General Hdwarri claimed credit for the 1673.24 122 

Mr. Hnrmon's testimony : 

Was Balloch's agent in the Richie case 130 

And Henderson case 137 

Relative to his prosecution 179 

Hunting up claimants by subagents 181 

His court-martial 186 

Major Brinvn's testiniony relative to 192 

Ge/neral Whittlesey relative to 210 

General Halloch' s testimony relative to 248 

Mr. Moiidcy's testimony, how the, firiit came up in the Adjutant-General's Office 375 

Number of eas s belonging to his defalcation included in the 174 cases 393 

Major Vincent's testimony. 

Order <letailing, in January, 18C6, on General Howard's request, (Exhibit E') 415 

RUTHERI-ORD, ALLEN, Third Auditor, when officially mentioned, (see THIRD AUD- 
ITOR.) testimony of, by judge-advocate 48-52 

Cross examined by defense 50 

S. 

SABINE, JAMES, clerk Ereedraan's branch Adjutant-General's Office, by judge-advocate, 

testimony of 404-406 

SAIRS, chief of division. Second Auditor's Office 511 

SALKS OF FURNITURE, &C 386,387 

SAU VINfiT, C. S., agent, .tc 80, 93, 94, 98, 122, 123, 146, 147, 148, 150, 151, 155, 345 

SAVILLE, chief clerk Treasury Department 228 

SCHOOLS, General Whittlesey's testimony, the work of the Bureau in connection with . . . 207 

General Alvord's reports relative to their destruction 39i 

Estimates foi', as reported to Hou.se of Representatives, April 13, 1872 419-422 

SCHOOL-l^UND (.we APPROPRIATION for 1872) of South Carolina 258,480 

SCOVILLE, N. R., cashier, agent 87 

SC RL^GGS, Dr. K. S., agent, no salary or appointment 83 

SEELY, F. A., brevet lieutenant-colonel, agent, &c H 8.5, 434 

SELLS, MORRIS, claim of 120, 161, 3G4, 365 

SENATE, UNITED STATES 5 

SE WELL, F. D., Geneial, in.spector of Bureau 150, 155, 195, 209, 210, 212, 247 

Letter April 23, 1874, to General Howard ... 514 

SEYMOUR, T., major Fifth Artillery, agent of Bureau 479, 495 

SHAW, Mr. J. W 356, 408, 409, 410, 424, 428, 463 

SHEPHERD, THOMAS M., of A. R. Shepherd & Co., testimony of, by judge-advocate 290-292 

Cross-examined by defense 292 

SHERID A N, J. B. , recorder 198 

SHPjRIDAm, p. H., major-general and commissioner 205 

SHERMAN, W. T, General United States Army, letter of General Howard to, November 

27, 1873, asking to be assigned to Army duty 517 

SHIRAS, ALEXANDER E , colonel and acting Commissary-General Subsistence, when 

officially mentioned, (see SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT,) testimony of 10-14 

Cro.ssexaniiued by defense 12 

SHEPHERD, A. R.& Co 263,227,253,257,489 

Their bill 301-318 

(S-e also under BONDS, UNITED STATES ; charge 6-1.) 

SIMS, JOHN M., (Second Auditor's Office) 199,362,373,374 

Testimony of, by judge-advocate 157-174 

Recalled, by judge-advocate 404 

Cross-examined by defense 160, 162 



22 

Page. 

SLADEX, .TOSEPn A., lieutenant and aid-de-oamp 210, 343, 467 

Testimony of. for defense 476-496 

Cross-examined by judge-advocate 494-496 

Recalled 545 

SLOCFM, n. W., General ' 238 

SMITH, ELIZA, widow of William, case of ,342, 34.3, 3t2 

General Vincent's'letter to Adjutant-General, May 27, 1873, asking that the case be placed 

before Department of Justice 3g9 

SMOOT, bill of, for .services as counsel in a murder case, (Exhibit M') 87 

SN lEL, clerk Second Auditor's Office 374 

SOLDIERS' HOME 270 

SOLU'ITOIMJEXERAL 179.180,181 

So:SIES, THOMAS 139 

SPEAKER HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. {See REPRESENTATIVE.S, HOUSE 
OF.) 

SPILMAN, Mrs. A.T., claim ngent Ill 364 391 

SPIXNKK, V.V.. (See TliEASUUER UNITED STATES.) 

STANl'O.V, E. M., Secnturv of 'War 459 

STARKIE ON EVIDENCE, cited: 

Volume 1, section 164 320 

Volume 1, section 217 .'ill 

Volume 1. sections 211,212.213.016,218,219 512 

STATE BOUXTV. (See r.( )UXTY-FUND, IRREGULAR. &c.) 

STATE RECOltDS, iMte r.nrcau Refutrees Freedmcn and Abandoned Land.s. (See 
RECORDS; «/»o, FREEDMEN'S BUREAU.) 

ST ATIO \E R Y, lull of Langran, Ogilvie & Co 275 

STERNIU: RG. FU ANCIS 127 

STOXK, GEORGE W., witness 145 

STORK-KKKI'ERS, ORDXAXCE 32,33 

STORE KEEPERS, MILITARY 32,33 

STRONG, (Teneral. inspector Freedman's Bureau 1:)5 

SUBSISTENCE DEPARTMENT, and Commissary-General of 11, 14, 2G1 

(For testimony of chief and employes see names.) 

SUGGS. RTCn.\RD, vouclier : 95 

SU.MX 1: R, (11 A 1; Lies, Hoo.. United States Senator, death annoiincod 6 

SUXDERL.\XI). Rev. BYRON, President Howard University 2.^4 

SUPREME Ct)URT UNITED STATES, (14 Petens, 448 and 461) 320 

SURGEOXGE NEPAL'S OFFICE, "O^ar Department, furnishing information to the Bureau 

Refugees, Fruednien and Abandoned Lands . 459 

T. 

TA YLER, R. AV., First Comptroller. ("Where official! y mentioned, see COMPTROLLER, 
FIRST.) 

Testimony of, by judge-advocate ,53-55 

Recalled '. '. .' 304-308 

Cross-examined by defense 54, 30.5-307 

TAYLOR, E. S., voucher in name of 294-395 

TAYLOR, ( ; KORG K, case of 160, 101 237, 358 

TA Y LOR, W. 1;., Exliiliit E^ 66 

TECIIN'U^'.VL. the wurd as used in order convening court, meaning of 3 

TERRY, S. A., chief clerk disbursing office Freedmens Pm eau 124, 452, 486, 509 

Testimony of, for defense 463-473 

Recalledlordefcu.se 475,476 

Cross-cxainiiied by judaie-advocate 468, 469, 470, 471, 472 

TESTIMONY of— 

Ali'oriJ, Jienjiimin, Brig. Gen.. Paymaster-General United States Army 23 

Balloch, George, late chief disbursing officer Bureau Refugees, Freedinen and Aban- 
doned Lan(is 60, 218, 429 

Betnan, E. C, late agent Bureau, &c 145-154 

Benet. S--V., Ma j., acting Chief Ordnance United States Army 30 

BrocUiead, J. 31., Second Comptroller 34, 292, 498 

Brorvn. J. M., late chief disbursing officer Bureau, &.c 188, 434 

Cauldivell, Andrew, Third Auditor's OlWe 270, 300, 402, 426 

Coates, Andreiv, late agent Bureau, &c 461 

Cook, J. H.. late chief clerk Bureau, &c 450 

Drew, William P., late chief bounty division Bureau, ifcc 455 

Duvall, Lameeh , late clerk Bureau, &c 462 

Foster, J. G.. Lieut. Col., acting Chief of Engineers United States Army 25 

French. E. B., Second Auditor ' 43, .52, 178, 198, 268 

Fry, Jams B., Lieut. Col., assistant adjutant-general United States Array, late Provost- 

Mar.shal-General United States Army 321 

Harmon, H. C, Second Auditor's Office ."^ 124, 154 

Harrison, William U., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 278 

Howard, O. O., Brig. (Jen., latecommis.sioner Bureau, «fec., statement made to the court by 515 

McOee, J. L.. late clerk AdjutaMt-Cleiicrnrs Office 508 

Meigs, M. C, Brig, (ien., Quarteniiasfei-Geiicral United States Array 7 

Moodey, John S., chief cl(;rk Fi-eeduien's Branch Adjutant-General's Office 264, 338, 509 

Jiutkerford, Allan, Third Auditor 48 

Sabine, James, clerk Adjutant-General's Office 402 

Shepherd, Thomas M., of A. R, Shepherd & Co 290 

Shiras, Alexander E., Col., acting Commi.ssary-General of Subsistence United States 

Army 10 

Sladen, Joseph A., Lieut. Fourteenth Infantry, aid-decarap 470, 494, 545 

TayUr, Ji. W., First Comptroller .53, 304 

Terry, S. A., late chief clt^-k disbur.sing office Bureau, (fee 463, 475 

Thompson, A. X., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 151 



23 

Page. 
TESTIMONY of— 

. Townsend, BrisailiKr-Gtiurrtl, and Arlj lUant-General United feitates Army 41 

True, Edwai-d 7i'., TriMsniv Dipartnient 55 

Vincent, Thomas iJ.. ^ln\., assistant adjutant-general United States Army 56, 407, 426 

Vinson, John T, Third Auditoi 's Office 447, 474 

Whittlesey. Eliphalet, late acting Commissioner Bureau, &c 196, 201 

Woodward, E. A., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 400, 454, 512 

THOMAS, G. H., Maj. Gen 238 

THOMPSON, A. N., clerk Adjutant-General's Office 375, 37C, 452, 458 

testimony of, by judge-advocate 151 

THORNTON, STEPHEN, emoueous payment of 446 

THURMAN, A. G., Hon., United States Senator 320 

TOWNSEND E. D., Brig. Gen. and Adjutant-General. (TVboro officially mentioned, 
see ADJUTANT-GENERAL.) 

testimony of, by j udge-advocate 14, 222 

cross-examined by defense U3, 20, 21 

TRANSFER of funds. (See FEES RETAINED AND RESPONSIBILITY.) 

TREASURER, (F. E. Spinner) 55 

opinion of, relative to accounting for " irregular-bounty fund " 4n7, 500 

TREASURY, United States is discharged when certificate has been sent out by 200 

letter, General Howard, January 8, 1873 to, transmitting list of claimants luider '• irreg- 
ular-bounty fund " 482 

letter, same to same, January 27, 1873, turning over a_balauce of |1, 628.59 of the "irreg- 
ular-bounty fund " ; 482 

letter of General Howard to, April 14, 1874, and Secretary's reply thereto, April 20, 

1874, .same subject 545, 546 

TREASURY, SECRETARY OF, AND DEPARTMENT 7,8,16,23,24,38,39,55,97,298,299 

opinion, iu letter to Secretary of War, January 17,1874, on the "174 cases ' 173 

decision as to itemizing Bureau api)roj)riations on the books of 228 

(,S'ee AUDITORS, COMPTROLLERS, SIMS, HARMON, TRUE, &c.) 
correspondence of, with "War IIcikii tiiunt relative to re-opening General Balloch's 

accounts iu connection with tlie ' Sbei)berd " voucber 308-318 

relative to re-opening accounts of disbursing officers Freedmen's Bureau" 320 

prescribes the form in which an account should be stated 394 

indorsement, March 16, 1874, relative to the 8250,C00-bond transaction 403 

letter, August 7, 1 805 412 

Major Vincent's opinion as to tbe duty of accounting officers of the, in the matter of 

accountability of officers 417 

letters to Secretary of War, October 4, 1871, and from Second Auditor, September 30, 

1871, relative to the !j250,000-bond transaction 438,439 

letter Secretary of War, October 9, 1871, to, relative to General Balloch having been 

relieved as disbursing officer 443 

letter, September 10, 1873, to Secretary of War, transmitting correspondence in the 

" bond transaction" 444 

letter from Secretary of War, September 11, 1873, and letter of ■ September 12, 1873, 

iu reply, relative to above subject 445 

letter, April 26, 1874, to General Howard, ordering rendition of accounts in " irregul.ir- 

bountv fund " 527 

TRUE. KmvAKD R., Treasury Department : 

testimony of 55, 56 

recalled ' .'J8-60 

TRUST-FUND. (See BOUNTY FUND RETAINED.) 

TURNER, RICHARD, case of 92, 202, 446 

TURTELLOTT, NELSON, agent Bureau, no salary 83,84 

TUPPER, H. M., voucher iu name of 294, 395 

TUTTLE. LE ROY, assi.stant treasurer United States, as trustee Freedman's Bank 88 

TYLER & GARRISON, attorneys 434 

V. 

VAN DE WIELE, JOHN B., captain Tenth Cavalry 364 

VETERAN RESERVE CORPS, officers of, in Burean, &c 70 

VINCENT, THOMAS M., major and a.S8istant adjutant-general. (When officially mentioned, 
see under ADJUTANT-GENERAL.) 

te.stimony of, identities papers 56-58 

recalled 407-416. 418-425, 426-429 

cross-examined by defense 410-418 

VINSON, JOHN T., office Third Auditor, relative to retained-bounty fund 106, ll.'j 

testimony of, by defense .' 447-450 

recalled by defense 474, 475 

cross-examined by judge-advocate 448-450 

VOLUNTEER officers on-duty in Freedmen's Bureau 70 

VOUCHERS, generally: 

.^^Sent in by Major Brown at close of Bureau 99, 124 

For retained bounty 104-111 117 118 

-(.S'e«,a;«o, BOUNTY FUND RETAINED.) 

General Howard approves on abstract 104-111, 117, 118, 179, 180 

In cases of General Balloch's disbursement 119, 120 

Agiston case ' 128 

Richie case 129 

Testimony of Colonel Beman relative to 150, 151 

Testimony of Mr. Sims 157-174 

Testimony of Second Auditor 179-184 

The Barrett and Mattiugly cases 179-180 

Signed before money was paid 182, 183 

-^Book showing, .ind money sent to agents by General Balloch, kept by him and not 

turned over to the War Department 221 222 



24 

VOUCHEHS— Coiit-iiiied. 

Tlu' (i;itc (it ]):iyinpnt of a '. 872 

Examinatidii of, in Third Auditor's Office by clerks of Adjutant-General's Office 287 

! In the blicplicrd bill '. 290-292,301,309 

! (See,also, VOT^CHERS, FALSE, and BOUNTY FUND RETAINED. 

The, coverinj: interest on tlip *:iO(i, 000 invested iu United States bonds 302,303,304 

Testimony ()f Colonel Fry, I'rovo.st-Marslial-Geueral: 

i Manner of renderini;, by provost-uiarshals 322,323 

i Mr. iloodeji'-s to.stimony : 

f The Tui)per and Taylor vouchers 39.% 

^ Pre.sent system of rendering iu Freedmen's Bureau and Adjutant-General's Office. . 395, 396 
5 False or fraudulent, pavinents on, (cliarije 1-1 ) 

£ " {Sea, also, L>EFKAUDING CLAIMANTS.) 

Colonel Shiran's testimony : 

S Responsibility for paying on 11 

S General TownseniV s testimony : 

i> Responsibility for ])ayiug on 17 

S General Balhch's testimony 72-75, 31, 82 

Jones and Turner cases 91, 92 

Mandeville's balance of §8,000 94 

Rowley, Suggs, and Hill cases 96 

S " Bcmnty-register" 97 

S Relative to §31,915.86 called in by Major Brown 99 

Louisa Briggs's case, (Exhibit G") 116,117 

S' Robbios case 117, 118 

S' Ponder, Oliver, and Davis cases 118, 119 

S' Hammond case, (H'*) 119 

S' Collinsca.se. (Exhibit P) 119,120 

S' Sellsca.se. (Exhibit J-") 119,120 

S' General Howard approves witness taking credit at the Treasury on foregoing pay- 
Si ments 120 

Colonel Bern an' s testimony : 

SI **Mode of making out vouchers 1.50,151 

SI - Admission, by defense, of General Balloch taking credit in the 174 cases 158,159 

Sr Mr. Siins's testimony : 

SC Austin and other cases 160, 101 

SU Major Brown's testimony : 

Money transferred to Captain McMillan 190, 1 91 

The witness's mode of disbursement 189, 190, 191 

General Balloch' s testimony : 

•' Jacket cases" of Julius Jones, Richard Long, &c 237 

Xi s,»Paymasters receive receipted vouchers before they send the money 243 

"Witness knows paragrsiph 997 Rules and Regulations to be violated 2.')6 

" Maria Blair " case 256 

Mr. Moodey's testimony : (See, also, DEFICIENCY and DEFRAUDING CLAIMANTS. 3.'!8-348 

The Granger embezzlement 347, 348 

T.^ Balances turned ov(^r by Major Brown 346 

T.^ ' Tlic House and Ainbler ca.ses 347, 348 

X^ "^n connection with the charge of confusion of records, (q. v., see, also, DEFRAUD- 

TE ING CLAIMANTS 358-3(15 

XJi How the matter of the " 174 cases" first came up in Adjutant-General's Office 374 

Letter of General Vincent to Adjutant-General May 27, 1873, relative to ca.ses of 

this nature, especially the Walker, Kiudrc<l, and Smith cases 388, 389 

The number of the 174 cases that appertain to the Mandeville, Frencb. and Runkle 

IE!- defalcation 392,393 

WAGER, J. H., agent 274, 275 

"W A LDEN, C. C, witness to voucher, rExhibit I) 75, 77 

WALKER, DOMINIClv. (^Sce HARRIET A. WALKER.) 

WALKER, HARRIET A., widow of Pins D.. ca.se o I. .340, 341, 342, 378, 385,389, 390, 393, 4.34, 435, 467, 511 

WALKER, PIUS D.. case of. {See HARRIET A. WALKER.) 

WAR. SECRETARY AND DEPARTMENT OF 4, 9, 11, 17-24, 29, 36, 39, 41, 42, .50, 7H, 98, 99 

I List of retained-bounty fees sent to 110,122, 123, (discharge of Major Brown 188,) 189,193,200, 

L 201,210,219 

^ Letter of, to General Garfield 216,217. 

-f' Failure of. to furnish iiifcuniation to aid Bureau in indentification of claimants 256, 2.57 

^ Or(b^rs, balance of fuuda on hand, at closing of Bureau, to bo turned over to 258, 259, 266, 267, 277, 296 

J Duties of Seeretary of, in conm-ction with act March 3, 18()8 298, 308 

Duties of Secretary of. in connection with act July 12, 1870 304,305 

^ Interview of Mr. Cauldwell (Treasury Department) with, relative to the " Shephard " 

^ vouchers ^^^ 

^ Supervisory power of, over expenditures of appropriations 298-307 

•^ Has no supervisory x)owers after the accounts have been passed to the Treasury except 

-* such as granted by act March 3, 1868 308 

•^ Correspondence of, with Treasury relative to re-opening General Balloch's accounts.. 308. 309-318, 

ii r . .7 = 320,331-334 

'S Appointed the assistant provost-marshals 323 

^^ Arrangement made with approval of, relative to investigation of cases of defrauded 

*' bounty -claimants 339 

Calls on General Howard for balance not turned over to War Department 347 

^' Second Auditor, in letter January C, 1874, to Captain McMillan, cites instances where 

p credit in erroneous payments has been allowed by 367 

'£l Major V7/ic<'/t(',s- testimony : 

■t^n Relative to coi respoudence between the, and the Treasury Department, in connec- 
tion with the " bond " transaction 403,404 



■.V ^ 



.v^^' 



,-^^ 



.0 o. 









>/. .-Js'^ 



.-H ^^ 



v*^ 



C^' 



■.^•^ 



^ 



' <r' \-)> >^ '' ^ '' V 






>^ v^^ 



' ' . . s ^ ^O 



^.^^ 






.5 r,. 






.A V, 



u^' 



-V^^ ^. 









Sfel^ N- MANCHESTER 



^"^ '^, 



